S. Hrg. 104-872
NATURAUZATION PRACTICES
GOVDOC
Y 4. J 89/2:S.Hrgl
\o^-^19 I HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGMTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING THE PRACTICES AND POLICIES OF THE IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE AS IT RELATES TO THE NATURALIZATION
PROCESS
OCTOBER 9 AND 27,'^|&6^i.|/J^^
Serial No. J-104^1(^ ^ 1$^,
Printed for the use of the ComiyiSeeV^ntferiMLdiciary
irnu^M^^ PUBLIC UBRARY
G0V5RWM£iyT DOCUMENTS DEPARTr^J.£ri
^ RECFiVFD
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1997
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-055317-2
lOH^- f\
S. Hrg. 104-872
NATURAUZATION PRACTICES
GOVDOC
4. J 89/2:S.Hrg|
04-27;? 1^ HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAKY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING THE PRACTICES AND POLICIES OF THE IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE AS IT RELATES TO THE NATURALIZATION
PROCESS
, ^§fW^
OCTOBER 9 AND 22'^jra«l*iC^'^
— sfpj r^
Serial No. J-1Q4t1(^ / f^
Printed for the use of the ComijBSee^%>||r^Mdiciary
Nr
Irnu^JgJON PUBLIC LfBR^RY
GOyfifil\!M€NT OGCy^ENTS OEPARTr^ltrj •
RECEiyED
8 2000 j
U.S. GOVERNME^fT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1997
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of DocumenLs, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-055317-2
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South CaroUna JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama
HANK BROWN, Colorado PAUL SIMON, IlUnois
FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
JON KYL, Arizona DIANNE FEINSTEIN, Cahfomia
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan
Mark R. Disler, Chief Counsel
MajwS ?Jooney, Staff Director and Senior Counsel
^ Cynthia C. Hogan, Minority Chief Counsel
y^ ^f'W Karen A. Robb, Minority Staff Director
yr»f^
SUBCOMMiTTEB ON IMMIGRATION
ALAN K^ SIljjIPSON, Wyoming, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa ' ' - EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona PAUL SIMON, Illinois
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DIANNE FEINSTEIN, Cahfomia
■ '''* ' Dick Day, Chief Counsel
Michael Myers, Minority Special Counsel
(II)
CONTENTS
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Simpson, Hon. Alan K., U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming 1,253
Simon, Hon. Paul, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois 5
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts 3,256
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
OCTOBER 9, 1996
T. Alexander AleinikoflF, Executive Associate Commissioner for Programs, Im-
migration and Naturalization Service, Washington, DC; accompanied by
Don Crocetti, Associate Commissioner for Examinations, Immigration and
Naturalization Service; and David Rosenberg, Director, Citizenship USA,
Immigration and Natiiralization Service 6
Panel consisting of Pavil W. Roberts, chief executive officer, NatxiraUzation
Assistance Services, Inc., Lakeland, FL; and Richard Krieger, vice presi-
dent, Marich Associates, Inc., RockviUe, MD 21
Panel consisting of Michael J. Feuer, director. Board of Testing and Assess-
ment, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC; and Bert F. Green,
Jr., professor of psychology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 39
Panel consisting of Rosemary Jenks, director of policy analysis. Center for
Immigration Studies, Washington, DC; and Kathi Flynn, immigration su-
pervisor, International Institute of Lowell, Lowell, MA 52
OCTOBER 22, 1996
Panel consisting of John Fonte, visiting scholar, American Enterprise Insti-
tute; Lawrence Harrison, professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
and Douglas Klusmeyer, editor, Stanford Humanities Review 261
Panel consisting of Georgie Anne Geyer, sjTidicated columnist and author
of Americans No More: The Death of Citizenship; Dan Stein, executive
director. Federation for American Immigration Reform; and Raul Yzaguirre,
president. National Council of La Raza 284
ALPHABETICAL LIST AND MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Aleinikoff, T. Alexander:
Testimony 6
Prepared statement 16
Feuer, Michael J.:
Testimony 39
Prepared statement 41
Flynn, Kathi:
Testimony 242
Prepared statement 244
Fonte, John:
Testimony 261
Prepared statement 265
Geyer, Georgie Anne: Testimony 284
Green, Bert F., Jr.:
Testimony 44
Prepared statement 46
Harrison, Lawrence: Testimony 268
(III)
IV
Page
Jenks, Rosemary:
Testimony 52
Prepared statement 55
Various memos, e-mail notices, letters, and other correspondence 65
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M:
Letter containing a list of countries that do not permit dual citizenship .... 279
International Citizenship Laws 280
Article entitled, "U.S. Students Stumble on Citizenship Test," from the
American Teacher, dated October 1995 309
Klusmeyer, Douglas: Testimony 270
Krieger, Richard:
Testimony 25
Letter from Councilwoman Suzanne Sareini, city of Dearborn, MI to
Mr. Krieger, dated Sept. 1, 1996 29
Letter from Don Bluestone, executive director, Mosholu Montefiore Com-
munity Center to Mr. Krieger, dated Sept. 8, 1996 30
Letter from Cliff Frazier, executive director. New York Metropolitan Mar-
tin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolence to Mr. Kneger, dated
Oct. 4, 1996 31
Letter from Kamla Ramkissoon, site manager, Seva Community Services
to Mr. Krieger, dated Oct. 4, 1996 32
Letter from Yolanda Vega, director, agency services, Casita Maria Inc.,
dated Oct. 7, 1996 34
Letter from Rabbi Moshe C. Levin, executive director, Chabad Lubavitch
of Kensington to Mr. Krieger, dated Oct. 7, 1996 35
Roberts, Paul W.:
Testimony 21
Prepared statement ; 23
Simpson, Hon. Alan K.:
Prepared statement of Hon. Brian P. Bilbray, Representative in Congress
from the State of California 259
Prepared statement of Lawrence H. Fuchs, co-chair, U.S. Commission
on Immigration Reform 300
Stein, Dan:
Testimony 287
Prepared statement 290
Yzaguirre, Raul:
Testimony 293
Prepared statement 296
Letter from Antonia Hernandez, president and general counsel, Mexican-
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), dated Oct.
29, 1996 312
APPENDDC
Additional Submissions for the Record
OCTOBER 9, 1996
Prepared statement of John Nelson Washburn, semi-retired attorney and
counselor at law 319
Article entitled, "Election Frauds," from the North American and Daily
Advertiser, dated Oct. 21, 1840 322
Article entitled, "The Naturalization Fraud at Philadelphia," from the
Savannah Dailv Republican, dated Oct. 29, 1840 323
Article entitled. The Philadelphia Naturalization Frauds," from the Sun,
dated Oct. 30, 1840 324
Article entitled, "Official Returns," from the Sun,dated Nov. 11, 1840 325
OCTOBER 22, 1996
Letter to the editor of the National Review from Charles Kamasaki, senior
vice president. National Council of La Raza (NCLR), dated Sept. 19, 1996 ... 326
Prepared statement of Harry P. Pachon, Ph.D., Kenan professor of poUtical
studies, Pitzer College/Claremont Graduate School, and president, Tomas
Rivera PoUcy Institute 327
Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) Policy Brief, dated October 1996 332
NATURALIZATION PRACTICES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1996
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room
SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Alan K. Simpson
(chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.
Also present: Senator Kennedy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN K. SIMPSON, A U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator SiMPSON. The hearing will come to order. Good morning.
Welcome to a hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration on INS
naturalization practices. There has been quite a bit of notoriety
about this issue. I think it is important to leave some kind of a
record behind with regard to at least the current situation.
Today, the subcommittee will hear testimony from witnesses who
are familiar with the practices of the recent past. We will hear
from INS, from independent test-givers, from test development ex-
perts, and from outside observers. But I think before we turn our
attention to the process and all its requirements, we need to be
clear why naturalization is so very important.
U.S. citizenship is, and should be, a most precious, precious sta-
tus. I know when I practiced law in Cody, WY, that was one of the
most impressive ceremonies when they would appear before the
district judge within the District of Wyoming in the small commu-
nities to receive this precious status, and it is indeed. Certainly,
whether a person is a citizen by birth or by choice, U.S. citizenship
is eagerly sought by immigrants from around the globe.
Many of us who are bom here in the United States take our citi-
zenship for granted. We do not always treasure it as we ought too.
It is those who naturaUze, who choose America over any "foreign
prince, potentate, state or sovereignty" and promise to "bear true
faith and allegiance," it is these newest citizens who remind us of
how special American citizenship is.
Naturalization is the process which reinforces the bonds among
all citizens, and it culminates in the at least formerly impressive
ceremony where our Nation welcomes its newest Americans. Please
know that the requirements for naturahzation are not arbitrary.
First, citizenship applicants must reside in the United States for 5
years, 3 years if their spouse is already a citizen; second, be able
to spe£ik, to read, and to write English; third, to have knowledge
(1)
and understanding of the fundamentals of U.S. history and the
principles of the Government of the United States; and be a person
of good moral character attached to the principles of the Constitu-
tion, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the
United States.
These requirements are intended to ensure a common framework
for Americans and to protect the fundamental institutions that
Americans hold dear. These requirements ensure that those who
have the privilege of citizenship are able to exercise the responsibil-
ities which accompany it. Some individuals promote American citi-
zenship on the basis of the practical benefits that it brings. Citi-
zens are entitled to several important privileges — ^the right to vote
for representatives in their local, State, and national government;
a U.S. passport and all the protection that offers when traveUng
the world; opportunities for employment in certain Federal jobs
and, under the new welfsire reforms, access to certain Federal wel-
fare programs.
Recently, one individual, a naturalized American, who strongly
opposes the recent welfare reforms advocated and adopted by Con-
gress, announced that he will devote $50 million not simply as a
private charity to ameliorate hardships that may or may not result
from the reforms, which I supported, and many of us did in a bi-
partisan way, but rather that that money go toward naturalization
efforts, which will then guarantee continued access to taxpayer-
funded support systems. That is an interesting concept.
While there are very practical benefits that derive from U.S. citi-
zenship, and thus from naturalization, they should not, in my view,
be the goal. I would hope that the Immigration and Naturalization
Service and others who administer the naturalization process will
focus on its central purpose; that is, to admit new members into
our body politic, persons whose full allegiance is to this Nation and
who have shown that they will be able to assume all the respon-
sibilities, people who embrace a common flag and a common lan-
guage, and that they will then be able to assiune the responsibil-
ities, as well as obtain the benefits of that full membership.
I am just going to cite a couple of quotes, and I wouldn't let you
guess where they came from. Here is one from many years ago dur-
ing World War I:
You cannot become thorough Americans if you think of yourselves in groups.
America does not consist of groups. A man who thinks of himself as belonging to
a particular national group in America has not yet become an American.
That was Woodrow Wilson who said that. I knew you probably
thought it was some evil rascal somewhere.
Here is another one. It says:
We have no 50-50 allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and
nothing else or he is not an American at all. We Americans are children of the cru-
cible. The crucible does not do its work unless it turns out those cast into it in one
national mold.
That was Teddy Roosevelt who said that one. He also said:
The absolutely one certain way of bringing this Nation to ruin, of preventing all
possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become
a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of Grerman Americans, Irish
Americans, English Americans, French Americans, Scandinavian Americans, or Ital-
ian Americans each preserving its separate nationality.
Those are things in the background that are not here for us to
address today, but those are the things that are uniquely Amer-
ican. When we see things happening with the naturahzation proc-
ess either through the use of testers or ethnic groups or people who
are simply desirous of seeing more at the expense of seeing what
this precious gift is, I think then we need to examine that, and that
is the purpose of this hearing.
We will review how current legal requirements for naturalization
are being implemented by the INS. As I say, recent reports have
cast some doubt on INS' commitment to fully implementing these
requirements, requirements intended to prevent the award of U.S.
citizenship to those who are not fully entitled to it. So I am eager
to proceed.
The timing was magnificent. I had just concluded my remarks
and suddenly, like a phantom from the wings of the opera, the
phantom of the opera himself — oh, no — and we have had enough
good-byes and we will have some more, but this is one delightful
gentleman whom I shall greatly miss from my Washington years.
Even though we have tangled and scrapped and will continue to do
so, he is a very remarkable man and a very delightful friend.
Ted.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much. Senator Simpson, and
I think, as we have remarked at other times, the Congress may
have been adjourned and Senator Simpson's time of service in the
Senate may be coming to a close, but he is once again demonstrat-
ing his dedication to service by continuing during the beginning of
the fiscal year oversight in some very, very important areas that
need attention. While others are in different parts of the country,
Senator Simpson, as we might know, is at his desk and conducting
these hearings. So we appreciate the chance again to be here at
this important hearing and to commend him for conducting the
hearing this morning.
Just very briefly, America is a nation of immigrants, and natu-
ralization, the act of becoming a citizen, is the heart and soul of
the immigrant tradition that has contributed so much to the Na-
tion throughout the two centuries of our history.
Few processes are more significant for the Nation than the steps
established by the Government to enable immigrants to become
citizens of the United States. Naturalization is a fundamental and
intended result of immigration. As the report of the Jordan Com-
mission emphasized, "Naturalization is about ensuring the vitality
of this Nation, ensuring continuity of our past, present, and fu-
ture."
Today's hearing deals with an unprecedented consequence of the
current national debate over legal and illegal immigration. Hun-
dreds of thousands of legal immigrants are rushing to qualify for
naturalization and become citizens in order to protect themselves
and their families against the harsh anti-immigrant tide that has
become increasingly prevalent in many parts of the coiuitry, and
blatant attempts by some in Congress to reduce the benefits avail-
able to legal immigrants.
To a large extent, legal immigrants are the innocent victims of
the backlash against illegal immigration. To protect themselves
against that backlash, it is hardly surprising that they are exercis-
ing their legal right to become citizens and participate in our de-
mocracy.
In 1992 when the Clinton administration first took office, INS re-
ceived almost 350,000 applications for naturalization. By the end
of 1995, the number had tripled to over 1 million applications. Un-
fortunately, the INS was given no significant additional resources
to handle this massive increase. As a result, INS was able to proc-
ess only half of the applications received in 1995. Backlogs were al-
ready 2 years long in some parts of the country and were likely to
increase to 4 years longer. Immigrants fully qualified for imme-
diate American citizenship were being denied that right for unac-
ceptable lengths of time.
I think, to her credit. Commissioner Doris Meissner made deal-
ing with the backlog of naturalization one of the top priorities for
INS in 1996. She received bipartisan support in Congress to repro-
gram funds and hire additional personnel and equipment. She
streamlined the management of the program, while maintaining
and improving the integrity of the process. The results of these ini-
tiatives have been a great American success story. Backlogs that
threatened to deny citizenship to large numbers of qualified appU-
cants for years were reduced to months. Justice was no longer
being denied because of these long delays.
Yet, now we hear complaints from some Republicans that INS is
doing its job too well and that it is doing so for partisan political
reasons. Nonsense. What is happening is democracy at work. It is
also poetic justice. Anti-immigrant Republicans have created an
unintended backlash against themselves. It is hard to take them
seriously when they complain that too many immigrants are be-
coming citizens and preparing to exercise their right to vote against
an anti-immigrant Republican.
There is no evidence of impropriety. Standards are being en-
forced. INS is responding properly to the soaring demand for citi-
zenship that our Republican friends have created. Denial rates re-
main as high or higher than ever before — about 17 percent — hardly
an indicator of lower standards.
The Citizenship USA campaign created by INS in response to the
demand for citizenship has focused on 5 cities that have 75 percent
of the applications — Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Chicago, and
San Francisco. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, INS efforts have
received impressive bipartisan praise from Republicans in the
South Florida congressional delegation, from the Republican mayor
of New York, and from the Democratic mayors of Chicago and San
Francisco.
So I commend the efforts of the men and women of the Immigra-
tion and Naturalization Service. They deserve praise, not blame,
for their effective response to the current crisis. I look forward to
the testimony of our witnesses.
I thank the Chair.
Senator Simpson. Thank you, and I think it is important, at least
with Senator Kennedy and myself through the years of our associa-
tion, which are now 18, that immigration and refugee issues are
not partisan. They are bipartisan, and it cannot be done in any
other form. Perhaps that was why the great tangle took so long to
get untangled this year because of attempts to make it a partisan
issue. That will always fail. I hope it will fail. It isn't worth wast-
ing time on, but I think it is very important that this, for me, has
never been anything in connection with any type of partisan activ-
ity, none, and the record will disclose that very, very clearly.
I have a statement of our colleague. Senator Paul Simon, which
I will enter into the record as if read in full. Certainly, he has been
a fine, contributing member of our work. At one time, there were
just three of us doing this work — Senator Kennedy, Senator Simon,
and myself — because there wasn't ever a rush to the door to help
us do it.
Certainly, Paul Simon was — well, we know who he is, one of the
most compassionate and remarkable men. He is Will Rogers' epit-
ome of never knowing a man he didn't like. He is a wonderful gen-
tleman. He will be greatly missed in this place.
[The prepared statement of Senator Paul Simon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Simon, a U.S. Senator From the State of
Illinois
I thank the Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Simpson, for whom I have the ut-
most respect and whose retirement will leave the Senate a much poorer institution,
for holding this hearing. The gift of citizenship is the greatest that this nation can
bestow on any immigrant, so it is essential that this Subcommittee and the Amer-
ican people get the facts straight regarding the Immigration and Naturalization
Service's Citizenship USA initiative.
I have long advocated a greater emphasis on naturalization on the part of the
INS, as well as Congress. Prior to this administration, for too many years, the
"Service" component of the Immigration and Naturalization Service generally — and
naturalization in particular — was the subject of virtually complete neglect. With
Commissioner Meissner at the helm, this has changed, and I applaud her commit-
ment to this important aspect of the INS' mission. She is without question the most
competent, engaged INS Commissioner that I have encountered in my 22 years on
Capitol Hill, and our immigration policy — in the area of naturalization and else-
where — is sounder for her leadership.
The INS' newfound commitment to naturalization has been painted by some as
a political maneuver designed to get votes for the current administration in the up-
coming election, at the expense of standards and adequate review of applicants' his-
tories. While this is a convenient explanation for the surge in naturahzation applica-
tions and approvals, let me suggest a different one.
Over the past two years, both in the 104th Congress and in states such as Califor-
nia, I have witnessed anti-immigrant sentiment the likes of which have not been
seen in this nation for several decades. This anti-immigrant sentiment is directed
not only toward iUegal immigrants — who shovild rightly be the subject of some strict,
but sensible, enforcement measures — but also toward legal inunigrants, despite the
fact that these individuals play by the rules, work hard, create jobs, and, on the
whole, confer net benefits upon this country.
Legal immigrants have long been a source of great enrichment for our nation.
Those immigrants who enter our nation legally today continue, as they have in the
past, to make invaluable contributions to America's social, economic, and cultural
well-being. Yet many Americans, including many members of Congress, have come
to view legal, as well as illegal immigrants, as parasites who take from America
without giving anji;hing back, and who possess no interest or stake in the nation's
well-being.
Such perceptions have given rise to laws like the new welfare reform law, which
drastically and, in my view, improperly restricts legal immigrants' access to govern-
ment assistance. The recent immigration bill, signed into law as part of the Omni-
bus Appropriations Bill, represents a further, but much smaller, step in that direct.
We also have state measures like Proposition 187 which, while directed at illegal
immigrants, have led to a great deal of discrimination against legal immigrants as
well.
While the anti-immigrant sentiment in evidence today is not novel in our history,
that is no answer to the many hard-working legal immigrants who hear themselves
maligned and scapegoated by their neighbors and their representatives in state and
federal government.
What is a legal immigrant to do under these circumstances? How can he or she
act to change the direction of a government that in its hostility toward immigrants
has forgotten the very foundations of this nation's greatness? How can he or she
gain a greater stake in a society that has come to view immigrants — however long
they have resided here — as outsiders? The answer lies in naturalization, and in
what naturalization provides — the right to vote, the ultimate participation in demo-
cratic (not Democratic) society. Nothing could be more American than the desire to
affect political outcomes through the casting of a ballot on election day.
So is it any surprise that legal immigrants seek to naturalize in record numbers?
Is it any surprise that California — the site of Proposition 187 — leads the nation in
naturalization backlogs? Is it wrong for the Administration to try to address this
phenomenon through an aggressive and long overdue pro-naturalization initiative?
The answer to each of these questions is no.
Republicans charge that the Administration's naturalization initiative is a "get
out the vote" strategy designed to help Democrats in November. Yet in the same
way that immigration has never been a partisan issue, immigrant voting patterns
have rarely reflected one-sided partisanship. Many immigrants vote Democrat;
many others vote Republican. The cities with the largest backlogs — Los Angeles,
Miami, New York — contain many of both. The Republican charges on this front fly
in the face of history and reality.
Maybe it is unfortunate that immigrants have until today not been sufficiently
motivated to naturalize. I think a review of our history would find many other
groups whose participation in politics only really began in the face of the kind of
threat faced by legal immigrants today. If immigrants vote Democrat this year,
those Republicans that have spent the better part of two years advocating anti-im-
migrant legislation will have only themselves to blame.
We all recognize the lengths that INS must still travel to make up for current
shortcomings in a variety of areas. No one is suggesting that all the necessary work
has been done. But it is moving in the right direction, and the Administration's com-
mitment to facilitating naturalization is a positive, not a negative, sign.
In closing, let me add a few words about the individuals who have headed the
Citizenship USA initiative for the INS. During my tenure in the Senate, I have
worked with many of them. Like Comipissioner Meissner, they are committed to
helping immigrants and to helping immigrants help themselves, without compromis-
ing the standards of the Agency and the naturalization process. Far from being po-
litical "hacks" and "operatives", they are dedicated, honest individuals doing good
work, not for Democrats, but for America.
Senator SiMPSON. So we will now proceed with the witness, T.
Alexander Aleinikoff, the Executive Associate Commissioner for
Programs, Immigration and Naturalization Service. We do have the
time limitations and I thank you for your understanding of that,
and we would be very pleased to have your testimony.
STATEMENT OF T. ALEXANDER ALEINIKOFF, EXECUTIVE AS-
SOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR PROGRAMS, IMMIGRATION
AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC; ACCOM-
PANIED BY DON CROCETTI, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR
EXAMINATIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE; AND DAVID ROSENBERG, DIRECTOR, CITIZENSHIP
USA, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. Aleinikoff. Thank you. Senator. Thank you for the oppor-
tunity to appear before you today. I am pleased to discuss with you
the Immigration and Naturalization Service's achievements in re-
sponding to an unprecedented increase in applications for natu-
ralization.
Under our initiative, called Citizenship USA, the Service has ad-
judicated more than 1.2 million applications for naturalization in
fiscal year 1996, and we did so in a timely, accurate, and respon-
sible manner. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be here today to allay
some of the concerns that you raised about whether or not the laws
have been followed and we have done this in an appropriate fash-
ion.
I would like to take a few minutes to review the origins of the
program. Quite simply, the numbers tell the story. As Senator Ken-
nedy pointed out, in previous years naturalization applications
averaged about 2 to 300,000 a ye£ir. In fiscal year 1994, that num-
ber rose to 550,000. In fiscal year 1995, it leaped to more than 1
million, and that level repeated in 1996 as well. We expect that
level to stay the same for the next year or so.
By early 1995, these record-breaking numbers had created a
huge backlog and processing times had risen dramatically, and in
the summer of 1995 the INS conceived of Citizenship USA, a pro-
gram designed to retiu-n our processing times to acceptable levels.
We announced the program in August 1995. Our stated goal was
to get current with naturalization applications by the summer of
1996. By "getting current" we meant a processing time of 6 months
from the time of filing to swearing-in as a new citizen.
While Citizenship USA is a nationwide program, we initially fo-
cused our resources in 5 key districts where the greatest numbers
of pending cases existed. These were Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami,
New York, and San Francisco. At that time these offices had 75
percent of the pending caseload and the waiting time for interviews
there were patently unacceptable. An applicant filing for natu-
ralization in Los Angeles in the summer of 1995 would have waited
more than 2 years to be interviewed, and in Miami more than 4
years.
In short. Citizenship USA put both "Naturalization" and "Serv-
ice" back into the INS. Naturalization applicants are long-term per-
manent residents who pay a significant fee for a service — the effi-
cient adjudication of their application under the law. Had we not
taken steps to meet this tremendous challenge of the huge in-
creases, we would now be facing criticism for inaction and derelic-
tion of duty.
The importance of U.S. citizenship cannot be gainsay. For both
the applicant and for the Nation he or she seeks to join, it is a deci-
sion of singular significance. It is the highest benefit — some may
justly say honor — that this Nation bestows on immigrants. Because
of the tangible and the symbolic importance of granting citizenship,
INS' increased efforts must be carried out in a fashion that does
not compromise standards. This we have done. No policy directive,
no guidance, has been issued that reduces the standards we apply
to naturalization applicants. Indeed, our denial rate for Citizenship
USA is at or above historic levels.
Furthermore, our efforts have had bipartisan support fi*om the
Congress. Two reprogrammings have been approved by the appro-
priations committees, the second in January 1996 which expressly
identified the goals and means of Citizenship USA. Chairman Rog-
ers' notice of approval states that he "is pleased that the INS is
recognizing the significant workload and addressing it in this re-
programming."
The reprogramming permitted us to hire over 1,000 adjudicators
and other personnel and contract employees. We detailed them
8
originally to the key districts and all of the officers who were de-
tailed volunteered to be part of the project. All the new personnel
that we hired — permanent, temporary, and contract — received ap-
propriate security clearances and training, and are supervised by
experienced INS personnel. In the five key districts, we opened
nine new citizenship centers, newly equipped with updated tech-
nology, mostly located in areas that are more accessible to the ap-
plicants.
Mr. Chairman, let me say a few words about FBI fingerprint
checks, and I may run out of time and perhaps I will have more
time in the question period to say more. We have made many im-
provements to the fingerprint clearance process to make it as effi-
cient and thorough as possible. Recent media reports have reflected
a misunderstanding of what we are doing, so I would like to ex-
plain the process.
Each naturalization applicant submits a fingerprint card with his
or her application and that card is sent to the FBI. The FBI reports
to the INS as to whether there is a match in its files, and when
there is a match the record is provided to the INS. We receive a
positive response or a hit from the FBI in only a small percentage
of cases, and since FBI databases include not only convictions but
also records of arrests and administrative processing by INS, the
number of records which represent disqualifying convictions that
would bar naturalization are a fraction of the hits that we receive
from the FBI.
In June of this year, INS established the Fingerprint Clearance
Coordination Center at the INS service center in Lincoln, NE, to
centralize the receipt and processing of all FBI responses, and this
allows us to provide the FBI record immediately to the responsible
field office designated as a point of contact for matching with the
applicant's files.
There is more to say here, Mr. Chairman, which I hope I will get
a chance to do in the question period, but let me just conclude with
the following remark. No major initiative is problem-free. To be
sure, we have experienced growing pains, but where problems have
surfaced, we have dealt with them forthrightly and in a thoughtful
manner. We have recognized and protected the fundamental sig-
nificance of U.S. citizenship in a manner that ensiu-es dignity to
those who have sought to join us as full members of the American
family.
Mr. Chairman, with our indulgence, I would like to invite two
additional people to join me at the table who are more knowledge-
able than I on some of the matters that you seek information on.
Senator Simpson. That would be perfectly appropriate, if you
would just introduce them for the record.
Mr. Aleinikoff. I would be happy to do so. On my left is Don
Crocetti, who is Associate Commissioner for Examinations, and on
my right is David Rosenberg, Director of Citizenship USA.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, can I just add a word of wel-
come to Mr. Rosenberg?
Senator SiMPSON. Yes, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. He hails from the State of Massachusetts and
was very much involved in the State programs and brings a rather
specialized understanding of what is happening in the States on
immigration issues and how they are deahng with a lot of the ac-
tivities. He has been a great resource for professional guidance to
the subcommittee, and I am delighted that the Service has drawn
on you, Mr. Rosenberg, to help and assist in these naturalization
programs. It is good to see you.
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you. Senator,
Senator SiMPSON. Are you trying to rehabilitate the witness?
[Laughter.]
I believe the other day I made some reference to some "political
hack," not knowing what name there might have been, and I cer-
tainly did not know that — I was given that information from the
House Operations Committee.
Senator Kennedy. That was a little dangerous.
Senator SiMPSON. It was; I can see it was. But you are a profes-
sional person. You have been involved in this in Massachusetts and
here, and your dalliance in politics has been minimal, is that cor-
rect?
Mr. Rosenberg. I think that would be a good way to put it, yes.
Senator SiMPSON. But vigorous?
Mr. Rosenberg. And I hope effective.
Senator Simpson. Oh, I see; well, that is true.
Mr. Rosenberg. But thank you. Senator. I appreciate that. It
was a little distressing to me, in that I have worked with this sub-
committee since 1986, perhaps a little less memorably than I had
thought, but I do appreciate the opportunity to correct the record.
Senator Simpson. Well, I thank you, and I certainly wanted to
correct it myself because that information did not come from Dick
Day and my crew. It came from, apparently, a hearing over there,
or some statement that was never corrected. Is that right?
Mr. Rosenberg. I am not aware where it came from. I do know
that the House did have all of my information.
Senator Simpson. It was some subcommittee. Anyway, thank you
very much. It is good to have you here.
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you.
Senator Simpson. Section 312 of the INA requires and sets forth
certain naturalization requirements with respect to English lan-
guage ability and knowledge of U.S. history and understanding of
U.S. history and Government. My first question is how did the INS
determine what should be the required level of ability to speak,
read, and write English, and the required knowledge of U.S. his-
tory and Government, and how did the Agency develop its methods
of assessing whether naturaUzation apphcants have that ability
and that knowledge?
I understand that one of the written questions on U.S. history
and Government is as simple as what are the colors of the flag. Do
you believe questions as simplistic as that have any relationship at
all to what Congress is trjdng to, see as the intent when we passed
section 312?
Mr. Aleinikoff. Well, in answer to the first part of the question,
Mr. Chairman, historically the Immigration Service has relied sole-
ly on its examiners to develop questions appropriate for meeting
the statutory requirements. That would be true of the test of good
moral character and other requirements under the statute. This
10
goes back many years. There was no study done originally in com-
ing up with questions.
In the 1980's, there was an attempt to standardize the set of
questions and a set of materials that applicants could study in
order to answer questions, and a set of 100 questions were devel-
oped for information and advice for our examiners in the field.
They are not required to use these questions, but most, in fact,
draw from this set of questions.
The idea there was to have a set of questions that would test
general information about the Government and about the history
of this country. Accompan3ring those questions was a set of teach-
ing materials, a set of texts that the applicant could read and glean
the important information about the functioning of our Grovem-
ment. These steps to standardize, we are not sure have gone far
enough and we are in the process now of putting out formal solici-
tations for proposals to develop a new civics test for us by civics
experts, outside civics experts, that will appropriately test history
and knowledge.
It is not to say that the prior tests were not appropriate tests.
It is just that we think it is time to have an outside body of experts
come in and tell us whether or not they were an appropriate set
of questions and, if not, what set of questions might more appro-
priately test that. But this goes back many, many years in the
Service.
Senator Simpson. Congressional intent is an ephemeral thing,
but for this Congressperson you would want a test that wasn't too
hard and wasn't too easy. It is very simple. You don't want some-
thing that is like the old days of the poll tax or something. We are
not talking about that, but we don't want something like, you
know, what are the colors of the flag. I mean, that is an assault
on common sense.
So I think that these outside experts, when they finish their
work — it would be very good to submit them to the House and Sen-
ate committees before implementing and before getting it out into
any further realm. Would you believe that that would be appro-
priate?
Mr. Alee^ikoff. Absolutely appropriate, and we look forward to
working with the committee to work on — I mean, I think it is an
interesting national question about what we think the appropriate
body of information is and it is one that we should have a public
discussion of.
Senator Simpson. I think, if nothing else, that that would be a
very important part of this hearing that when you get to that
point, submit those to the ranking members and the chairmen,
both parties, of the House and Senate committees responsible for
this issue.
Mr. Aleinikoff. We will do so.
Senator Simpson. Thank you very much. Now, I believe the INS
does about 75 percent of the testing for English literacy and knowl-
edge of history and Government. The rest is done by outside con-
tractors. This is where the controversy seems to have sprung that
there has been alleged fraud, such as examiners giving answers to
the persons they are supposed to be testing.
11
Could you describe very briefly how you select these contractors.
One was a group that had been very adept in driver's license appli-
cation approval and, I would think, have little idea or understand-
ing of the Federal Government and its systems, but that is another
matter. How do you monitor them in order to prevent fraud, and
after you have instituted these changes since the controversy in
order to make the fraud less likely, what have been the changes?
I guess, given the risk of what has happened, why do you feel that
the INS should not do all the testing itself? We would rather give
the resources to the INS to do the job and not have these other
agencies.
Mr. Aleinikoff. Well, we take the issue of fraud very seriously
and we have taken a number of important steps since the begin-
ning of this calendar year on the monitoring, and let me briefly de-
scribe them. In the early part of this year, we required all our test-
ing entities — and I should say the testing entities were approved
under a notice in the Federal Register in 1991 that set out a set
of requirements that one had to meet to be authorized. There are
six national testing entities, and then they enter into agreements
with local affiliates that do the testing on their behalf.
In January 1996, we required the testing entities to submit plans
as to how they intend to monitor their affiliates. We have also re-
cently, in the last few months, sent memos to our field offices re-
quiring them to do spot checks of these affiliates. Since January of
this year, 42 affiliates have been closed either by our action or by
the action of the testing entities.
We have obtained criminal convictions in Honolulu in one situa-
tion where a testing entity was giving away answers and we
thought that was inappropriate, obviously inappropriate. We have
17 other pending investigations into local affiliates. Importantly, on
October 1 of this year, we instituted a new set of rules that the en-
tities are now following which requires INS approval of all local af-
filiates, which had not been done before, and it requires that the
affiliates have testing experience before they can take on the job
of giving the test.
We have imposed stricter monitoring requirements by the out-
side groups. They now must monitor all their affiliates at least
twice a year, and we have also entered into a contract with an out-
side group on our behalf who will do monitoring of these entities.
So we really have a triple monitoring program now in place. The
outside entities themselves must monitor their affiliates twice a
year. Our outside contractor will do unannounced visits, about 100
a month, when they get up and running of these affiliates, and our
investigators will go out and look at these testing entities. So we
think it is a much more secure process than it was when it began
a number of years ago.
Senator SiMPSON. Thank you very much.
Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you. As I understand it, they are re-
viewing now the two tests. One is the English, and also the civics
test. Are they being reviewed in terms of what should be the stand-
ard in terms of the future?
12
Mr. Aleinikoff. We will be putting out formal solicitations for
bids by outside experts to help us develop and train and validate
tests.
Senator Kennedy. And when do you expect that decisions will be
made on those?
Mr. Aleinikoff. We expect the work will be completed by the
end of this fiscal year.
Senator Kennedy. Some of these, I would agree with Senator
Simpson, are probably unworthy of being on the exam. You have
got some others that are pretty hard, I think — how many changes
or amendments are there to the Constitution? You know, I think
some people might think about that. You have got. "What is the
most important right granted to U.S. citizens?" "Where does free-
dom of speech come from, and a basic belief of the Declaration of
Independence?"
You can go through and see some that wouldn't really reflect a
knowledge, but there are some in here that I think would be chal-
lenging for most high school graduates. I understand that the test
itself was given to high school students in one particular State and
the majority didn't pass it. So I think we are all interested in get-
ting something that is, as you mentioned, going to be reflective of
a knowledge of the English language, the ability to read, write, and
speak words in ordinary usage in the English language, and knowl-
edge of the attachment to principles of history and Government. I
think we agree. I think it is worthwhile having assurance that
those are the tests that we really have.
Let me just go briefly into what are some of the improvements
in the naturalization program. If you can go through those very —
you know, there are a series of those, but maybe you would just
touch on them quickly. I understand reference has been made to
the FBI. In the transition, there were some mistakes that were
made in terms of sorting out those that had a criminal record in
the past, but that has, as I understand, been remedied. But maybe
you would just go down very, very quickly about what you under-
stand are some of the improvements.
Mr. Aleinikoff. I would be happy to do those quickly. First of
all, we are now opening our mail and entering data into our sys-
tems. When we started Citizenship USA, we discovered that in two
of our largest districts there were boxes of files that had never been
entered into the data system because we didn't have enough clerks
and support staff to do that. So we have gotten on top of our incom-
ing applications and putting them in the system.
We are giving people who now apply receipts that, in fact, their
application has been received and that they will be scheduled for
an interview. We have established a direct mail process where peo-
ple, rather than having to come in to the district office and inun-
date the district local office with files, are mailing their applica-
tions to our remote processing centers, where the file is opened and
entered into the data system. Sixty percent of our applications now
go through direct mail, which relieves a huge burden on the district
and on the applicant as well, who doesn't have to wait in long lines
to file the application.
We have made significant improvements in our fingerprint proc-
ess. That is a longer answer I would be happy to give further infor-
13
mation on. We have tightened up the testing entities, as we pointed
out. I think, though, actually, the fundamental change under Citi-
zenship USA was increasing the number of adjudicators to handle
the incoming flow.
It is a similar solution that we applied to our asylum process. We
didn't change the asylum process. We didn't lower the standards.
We simply found more people to handle more cases and people
were processed in a timely way, as with Citizenship USA. We
didn't change the standards or the process. We simply have identi-
fied and used more people to handle what was a sea of applications
that we received over the last few years.
Senator Kennedy. OK There may be some other questions, Mr.
Chgdrman, but I thank you very much.
Senator Simpson. Thank you, Ted. We have a long agenda. There
will be questions I will submit in writing. A later witness will come
on to say that the minimum pass rate for the civics exam is 70 per-
cent of the 20 questions asked — that we should raise it to 70 per-
cent; that it is presently 60 percent, which is a D-minus, I think,
in most high school grading systems in most States. I want to find
out if you are going to change that level, and some of that.
Then, for the record, I just want to enter this, and this is not a
flash point, but I think it is very important. A person who is not
here as part of this first panel — on Monday, the subcommittee in-
vited Mr. Doug Farbrother, who is an official with the Vice Presi-
dent's Office of National Performance Review. They have been in-
volved in this; we all know that.
In documents presented to the Congress and are here today, Mr.
Farbrother talks about the concern that the Citizenship USA Pro-
gram would produce 1 million new citizens. This is his E-mail; this
is E-mail to the Vice President. Elaine Kamarck — and her name
pops up throughout, but it is from Doug Farbrother and it says:
No, sir, the bet was not just about Kelly Girls. I had bet Elaine that INS head-
quarters would not give their managers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago,
New York, and Miami enough authority, in general, to make me confident they
could produce 1 million new citizens before election day. Unfortunately, I was right.
What do you think of that?
Mr. Aleinikoff. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have not seen any of
these E-mails. The first I saw them was in a newspaper report yes-
terday morning, and I must say I was rather surprised and, in one
instance, stunned by what I saw in them.
Let me be clear on the role that the National Performance Re-
view office played in Citizenship USA. We announced Citizenship
USA in August 1995. We set our goals. We opened up new offices
in our major cities. We hired adjudicators. We assigned experienced
site managers to those places. In December 1995, we were des-
ignated as a reinvention lab by the Justice Performance Review,
the part of the Justice Department of the reengineering Govern-
ment initiative. So we were up and running by the first quarter of
1996, fiscal year 1996.
In the spring, in February or March 1996, the National Perform-
ance Review from the Vice President's ofRce came into our sites
and were interested in helping us to reinvent the process, to re-
engineer the process. We had already started our process, as I said,
and set our goals and we were well underway. They made a num-
14
ber of recommendations on how we could change our process, some
of which we accepted, but most of which we rejected.
What Mr. Farbrother is referring to here, I think, is a request
that headquarters delegate all its authority over the process to the
field offices. His view was, I believe, as he expressed it to us, if you
just freed up your local field people, they could do the work and
get the job done. We thought that was a ludicrous idea.
What we were trying to do was standardize the process. We had
a direct mail process, as I have explained it, that required mailing
applications to our remote service centers. We were concerned
about testing. We were concerned about monitoring. We did not
think it was appropriate to delegate more authority and we told
them so, and that request did not go forward. So we think he was
fundamentally mistaken in his analysis and we did not act upon
it.
Senator Simpson. No, but I think it is disturbing because I think
any of us. Senator Kennedy or myself — I am not interested in see-
ing the White House or the INS register people Democrat or Re-
publican. That is a distortion of everything American. If these peo-
ple are to be naturalized, it is fine to give them a voter registration
card, although I have some problems with that one, too, but you
don't get them in so you can register them for one party and then
poUticize your Agency, which I insist has happened, and it has hap-
pened without the approval and I think the knowledge of Doris
Meissner.
I think she has been hammered from down underneath by politi-
cal people who quicken the pace of naturalization, who are trying
to do things in a way that I don't think is good. I think it is unwise
speaking about naturalization in a political manner and I think it
taints the INS. So I am concerned that partisan desires may have
pushed the INS more swiftly than is prudent. I personally am not
concerned about the party affiliation of our newest citizens.
Let me just share this with you. Two days later — I have the
other E-mail and I will just put all this in the record.
[The information referred to was not available at presstime.J
Senator SiMPSON. I would like to quote:
Today, Chris Sale delegated hiring authority to the five cities and increased their
budgets by 20 percent. She also streamlined the backgroimd clearance process some,
but still anticipates a month-and-a-half to two months to get people on board.
So it did happen and it was a rather swift response.
Mr. Aleinikoff. Well, as I said, there were some suggestions
that NPR made to us. One of importance to us was they looked at
how long it was taking us to hire people. Our problem was we had
a lot of adjudicators we needed to bring on. Because of the budget
crisis and the furloughs, we were unable to do that. We were be-
hind in achieving our goals for the year because of that.
NPR looked around and said, gee, you could hire your folks much
more quickly if your background check — without changing the
standards, if you simply got the FBI to respond more quickly to you
on fingerprint checks, you could bring people on in a much shorter
period of time. We took their advice on that one and we are glad
we did. We have now used that with the hiring of many of our per-
sonnel. It was an efficiency in the process without a sacrifice of
standards. So on that one, that is correct.
15
Senator SiMPSON. Well, I have taken extra time and Senator
Kennedy is certainly entitled to any further, if he wishes. I just
wanted to clarify that something is going on and somebody would
have to know that something is going on when you get that kind
of E-mail floating around in the system.
Mr. Aleinikoff. Well, if I could. Senator, I agree with you en-
tirely that the naturahzation process cannot and will not and
should not be poUticized. This is a precious right, as you describe.
The Immigration Service went into Citizenship USA knowing the
importance of citizenship and respecting that importance. We did
not permit it to become poUticized and we will not do so.
Senator SiMPSON. Well, you can't. It is disgusting in prospect to
me as a citizen of the United States, not as a U.S. Senator.
Did you have something to add, Mr. Rosenberg?
Mr. Rosenberg. I would just say it is also a dangerous precedent
for us if that were to occur. Certainly, we were careful from the
very beginning to protect the whole nature of the process. It is not
to say that there weren't people who had their own ideas on why
they might think this was a good idea around the country, but it
is to say that the INS did not act on that.
Senator Simpson. Well, I thank you.
Senator Kennedy. Just briefly, as I understand, Farbrother is a
career civil servant and is over in the Pentagon. As I understand
it, he is not a poKtical figure, as has been represented to me. The
other point is that if they have been doing it for political purposes,
here you have the RepubUcan Congressperson in Miami, Rep-
resentative Ros-Lehtinen, who testified in the House that the new
citizens in Miami are registering as Republicans 6 to 8 times the
rate they are registering as Democrats. Mayor Giuliani in New
York, a RepubUcan mayor, has welcomed and commended Citizen-
ship USA.
I agree, certsiinly, with the thrust of Senator Simpson's — but, of
course, here you had George Bush appearing in the Orange Bowl
6 weeks before the Republican election the last time out for all new
immigrants in Miami in the last presidential election. He wasn't
out there, I don't beUeve, just urging good citizenship. There was
certainly a patina of interest in terms of encouraging them to vote
in that campaign.
I agree with Senator Simpson that this ought to be done for the
reasons that he has outUned — ^you know, there are going to be en-
thusiastic people in different places that are going to carry these
things on. We are all aware of that. I mean, I used to write people
in my own State of Massachusetts every time they became a citi-
zen. I wrote them and congratulated them. My Republican col-
league never did. Some would say, well, that is politicization of the
process. There are all kinds of ways of doing it and I think all of
us want to make sure that it is done in the ways in which it should
be done, and that is devoid of as much partisanship as possible.
Senator SiMPSON. I think that is true. I think there is no more
moving thing than to go to one of those ceremonies, and you and
I have been there. When they turn in their green card and raise
their right hand and suddenly they have that piece of paper in
their hand and have sworn an oath and allegiance, that is a very
moving thing. We don't want to tarnish it, certainly.
16
I thank you very much. You have been very helpful, very helpful.
I will have more questions to submit in writing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aleinikoff follows:]
Prepared Statement of T. Alexander Aleinikoff
Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to share with the
Committee the recent achievements of the Immigration and NaturaUzation Service
(INS) to process the largest number of applications for citizenship in our nation's
history in a fair, accurate, and timely manner. At the same time that our border
and worksite enforcement and removal efforts have gained pubUc attention and
been supported by unprecedented levels of Congressional appropriations, our Citi-
zenship USA program has made the "N" and "S" of INS a reahty for over one mil-
hon fee-paying legal immigrants who have played by the rules and sought, as gen-
erations before them, to become United States citizens. We are proud of our accom-
plishments in the first year of Citizenship USA. We have successfully adjudicated
1.3 million naturalization appUcations, resulting in 1.1 million new American citi-
zens without reducing standards or compromising the integrity of the adjudication.
We have reduced processing times for citizenship applications nationwide to tradi-
tional levels while maintaining the integrity of the citizenship process, and have ini-
tiated major improvements to natiiralization procedures and operations. We have
reached out to local officials, civic associations and community service organizations
throughout the country to involve communities in training, assisting and preparing
legal immigrants for the citizenship process and welcoming successful applicants as
new Americans. By redesigning outmoded processing methods, we have dem-
onstrated that a Federal government agency can respond to an unprecedented work-
load increase and fulfill its obUgation to maintsiin the public trust. Our efforts have
received bipartisan support from Congress and other elected officials.
HISTORY OF CITIZENSHIP USA
Let me bnefly review the history of Citizenship USA. Improvement of the natu-
ralization program has been a high priority for Commissioner Meissner fi"om the
time she came to INS in October, 1993. At her confirmation hearing before this com-
mittee, she expressed her belief about the importance of naturalization for immi-
grants, for their communities, for the INS and for America. And she stated her in-
tention for the Service to be "much more active * * * were naturalization is con-
cerned."
We designed Citizenship USA to address a particular crisis we faced in fiscal year
1995: a huge and growing backlog of naturaUzation applications. In many places,
long-term legal permanent residents would apply and pay their fee — naturalization
is not paid out of general revenue — and then had to wait two to four years to com-
plete the naturalization process. Such procedural delays were and are not acceptable
to the INS, to the Congress or to the Ainerican people.
By early fiscal year 1995, INS was receiving appUcations for citizenship at an un-
precedented rate, eventually over one miUion for the year, nearly twice as many as
the previous year. By the end of fiscal year 1995, we had over 800,000 pending nat-
iU"alization applications and only enough staff to adjudicate little more than hzdf
that many. The gap between our workload and our capacity was already large and
was becoming overwhelming. About 75 percent of the pending caseload was con-
centrated in five of our 36 Districts: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami and
San Francisco. As the attached chsirt shows, increases were everywhere, but were
most prevalent in these five districts. (Attachment 1)
Applicants' fees, plus appUcable penalties, pay for the entire naturalization pro-
gram, unless Congress makes specific additional appropriations. Congress did not
appropriate funds, but did approve our reprogramming requests to respond to this
massive naturalization workload.
In approving our two reprogramming requests, (which were initially targeted to
the five districts with the greatest need and later extended to permit temporary hir-
ing in 15 additional districts with smaller, but significant backlogs), provided ap-
proximately $80 milhon in additional spending authority for naturaUzation in fiscal
year 1996.
In his January 16, 1996 approval letter, Subcommittee Chairman Rogers (R-KY)
wrote: "I * * * understand that with these additional resources INS intends to re-
duce backlogs in naturaUzation and adjustment of status appUcations so that by
mid-summer, eUgible persons will become citizens within six months after applying
* * * I am pleased that the INS is recognizing this significant workload and ad-
dressing it in this reprogramming by hiring temporary employees to handle the
17
processing of workload in the six cities ^ that continue to have the largest voliune
of these apphcations."
Citizenship USA is a three-pronged strategy focused on Personnel, Process and
Partnership. First and most critically, we are augmenting personnel dedicated to
naturahzation cases. Second, are re-examining our work processes to improve effi-
ciency and quahty. And third, we are developing partnerships with organizations to
help prepare applicants and apphcations.
PERSONNEL
The reprogramming approval permitted us to hire over 1,000 adjudications per-
sonnel and data entry contract employees. Previously, we detailed INS employees
from other offices, aU of whom volunteered to be part of this project, to key districts,
in order to prevent the backlog from worsening in key districts. All workers — perma-
nent, temporary and contract — received appropriate secmity clearances and training
and are supervised by experienced INS personnel.
In the five key districts, we opened nine new Citizenship Centers, newly eqviipped
with updated technology, mostly located in areas that are more accessible to appli-
cants or in areas that are some distance from existing INS citizenship services.
PROCESS
We are in the midst of modernizing and improving processing of naturalization
apphcations without compromising our standards. In fact, our denial rate during fis-
cal year 1996 has risen to 17 percent, consistent with our shghtly higher than tradi-
tional rates.
DIRECT MAIL
In our four largest districts (Los Angeles, New York, Miami, and Chicago) appli-
cants can now send their natiirahzation forms directly to INS Service Centers, rath-
er than having to travel to District offices simply to file their application. This
streamlining allows INS to centraUze and perform data entry and other administra-
tive support functions much more quickly, and frees District Office personnel to con-
centrate on interviews and other adjudicative functions. It better serves our cus-
tomers, who now receive prompt letters acknowledging their applications are being
processed and informing them of approximate processing times. Again, this reduces
phone and personal inquiries to district offices. Advanced technology also enables
us to speed processing, reduce the potential for clerical error, and be more cost-effec-
tive. In a pilot program, we are testing 2-D bar-coding and optical scanning of the
N-400 apphcation.
FBI FINGERPRINT CHECKS
We have made many improvements to the fingerprint clearance process to make
it as efficient and thorough as possible, thus protecting the integrity of the process.
Recent media reports reflect a misunderstanding of what we are doing, so I would
like to explain the fingerprint clearance process. Each naturalization applicant be-
tween the ages of 14 and 79 must submit a fingerprint card to INS with their appli-
cation. The district office sends the fingerprint card to the FBI. The FBI reports to
INS as to whether there is a mateh with its files, and where there is a match, FBI
provides the record to INS. We receive a positive response, or "hit" from the FBI
in only a small percentage of cases. Since the FBI database includes not only convic-
tions, but £dso records of arrests and administrative processing by INS, the number
of records which represent disqualifying convictions that would bar naturalization
are a fraction of the "hits." Notwithstanding, all "hits" are reviewed by the adjudica-
tor and scrutinized to determine bearing on "good moral character."
In 1982, the INS adopted a pohcy of waiting 60 days aft;er fingerprints were sub-
mitted to the FBI before processing an apphcation. In discussions with the FBI at
that time, this was determined to be an adequate timeframe in which to process the
fingerprints. No response fix>m the FBI within that timeframe was assumed to mean
that there was no mateh with its records. In 1994, the Department of Justice's In-
spector General expressed serious concerns about the safeguards in several aspects
of the fingerprint clearance procedures. We have taken vigorous steps to address
these concerns.
^Congressman Rogers mentioned six cities because the reprogramming covered additional
stafT to handle both backlogged naturalization and adjustment of status applications. In addition
to the other five cities, Newark, New Jersey received staff increases for adjustment applications.
18
In June, INS established the Fingerprint Clearance Coordination Center (FCCC)
at the INS Service Center in Lincoln, Nebraska to centralize the receipt and proc-
essing of all FBI responses. This allows us to coordinate internal agency processing
and provide the FBI record immediately to the responsible field office's designated
point-of-contact for matching with the applicant's file. The FCCC also communicates
directly with the applicant if they submit unclassifiable fingerprints, relieving the
district offices of this administrative task. The new centrahzed system also allows
for data collection and ansdyses that were nonexistent under the prior process.
Through this centralization, we now know that "hits" are reaching the district of-
fices before the adjudication is finalized.
Fully 95.1 percent of the fingerprint checks are completed within 60 days, and
98.5 percent are completed within 90 days. Nonetheless, in order to ensure that ad-
judication does not precede completion of the FBI database search, field offices are
not permitted to complete the benefit adjudication process in less than 120 days
from the date the fingerprint card was forwarded to the FBI, luiless a response is
received before that time. This ensures that in virtually all cases, the district has
FBI's response to the fingerprint check before a benefit is granted.
As a further step, the FBI has recently begun producing for INS an "Aging Re-
port" of all cases in which the FBI has not completed its processing within 90-days.
This enables INS to place a hold on these specific files untU the fingerprint clear-
ance process has been completed. This important report will tell us definitively
whether the fingerprint check is complete in each individual instance. The FBI has
also agreed to provide INS a paper record of all negative records, or "no hit", find-
ings. We are actively in the process of developing technology that will allow us to
download electronically all FBI responses (negative and positive) into INS
databases.
Another significant improvement begins on January 1, 1997, when INS will accept
fingerprint cards only from Designated Fingerprint Service (DFS) providers and rec-
ognized law enforcement agencies. This is the first time that INS has regulated who
takes fingerprints. We will use contractor and Service personnel to conduct random
and unannounced audits. We expect this program to improve the quality of finger-
print cards submitted, increase safeguards for identify verification of the applicant
and reduce the need to reject fingerprint cards.
In a very small number of cases, both in the past and recently, FBI record
matches have been received after a benefit has been granted. We are currently con-
ducting a siu-vey or our field offices to determine the precise number of cases in
which the district has become aware of a disqualifying conviction after the individ-
ual has been naturahzed. Preliminary indications are that only several dozen indi-
viduals out of the more than 1.2 million naturalization applicants processed this
year have been wrongly naturalized. In each of these cases, we will take appropriate
action to revoke naturalization. In fact, a final rule will be published in the Federal
Register shortly which will provide administrative procedures for de-naturalization
which will be much simpler than the current judicial procedures.
OUTSIDE TESTING
Some concerns have been expressed about the outside testing program. We share
those concerns and have acted to improve the program. I must underscore, however,
ultimate decision-making has always rested with the INS adjudicator. A certificate
from a private citizenship testing service noting the successful completion of a
standardized test on written English and civics, does not guarantee an appUcant's
naturalization. Every naturalization applicant is interviewed by an INS Adjudica-
tions Officer. During this interview, an applicant must demonstrate that he or she
is a person of good moral character, has been a lawfiil permanent resident of the
United States for the required amount of time, is personally attached to the prin-
ciples of the United States Constitution, and possesses an ability to speak English
words and phrases in ordinary usage, unless the applicant is statutorily exempt
from the English language requirements. Applicants who cannot communicate in
basic English to the adjudicator, and who are not exempt by statute fi-om the Eng-
lish proficiency requirement, are not eligible for naturalization even if they possess
a certificate from a private citizenship testing organization. Seventy-five percent of
our naturalization appUcants are tested by INS on English and civics during the
naturalization interview. Only twenty-five percent use the services of a private test-
ing organization.
We have strengthened the management of the external civics testing program and
added new requirements for monitoring and test integrity since it was established
in 1991. Improved standards and increased monitoring to achieve compliance will
directly reduce the opportunity for fi*aud. We are reviewing the testing organiza-
19
tions' own commitments to self-policing, regularly informing them of policy and pro-
cediiral changes which affect their operations, and reminding our field offices of
their monitoring and inspection responsibilities with regard to the private testing
organizations.
The six national testing organizations must now comply with the following re-
quirements:
All new testing afiihates must be approved by INS Headquarters after we consult
with the appropriate local ENS office;
All new affiliates must demonstrate educational testing experience;
Test scoring must not take place in the presence of test takers;
Identification doctunents of test takers must be closely scrutinized to eliminate
the possibiUty of a person substituting for another during test administration;
Dictation of the English sentences used for proof of written English proficiency
must meet more stringent requirements; and
Testing fees must not be combined with fees for other services, so that local affili-
ates do not circumvent the requirement that the testing fee be reasonable.
In addition, national testing organizations will be required to report to INS:
The complete testing schedule for all affihates;
The names of all persons passing a test (and shall set up special telephone service
for INS to verify the vaUdity of a test certificate); and
Monthly resiilts of the organization's own monitoring efforts, including any sites
that are closed for cause.
INS recently contracted with a private security firm for supplemental monitoring
of testing sites. In this way, we are now monitoring testing sites in several ways:
Through investigations and unannounced site visits by both INS and the INS-con-
tracted organization; through the six national organizations monitoring their affili-
ates; and through our own examiners monitoring the quaUty of applicants who ap-
pear for interview with certificates frova the outside testing entities.
Finally, the Service is engaged in a fiindamental review of oxir testing policies and
procedures. Among the options being considered are the hmiting testing authoriza-
tion to no-for-profit and recognized educational testing organizations, as well as a
possible return to INS-only testing of natiiraUzation appUcants on Enghsh and
civics. We anticipate a final poUcy decision by the Commissioner within the next few
weeks.
STANDARDS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND CIVICS KNOWLEDGE
The ENS is in the process of revising the method by which we determine a natu-
ralization applicant's English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and govern-
ment. Liack of standardization among ENS offices has, for some time, led to incon-
sistent standards. We are working with recognized experts in linguistics to develop
standardized tests which will accurately determine an applicant's English pro-
ficiency and we are pursuing a similar approach to redesign the testing for knowl-
edge of American civics. The st£mdardized tests and accompanying educational ma-
terials which wiU be developed as a result of these efforts will be used in all INS
offices as well as by any organization authorized by INS to conduct testing.
PARTNERSHIP
Citizenship USA also stresses expanding ENS' partnerships with schools, civic as-
sociations, state and local officials and community organizations, to provide better
service to citizenship appUcants. These organizations offer information, application
assistance, and English and civics classes to prospective citizens. In some Districts,
INS officers conduct interviews in community sites. As a result of these partner-
ships, ENS receives better-prepared apphcations and has fewer "no-shows" at the
interviews. ENS provides no funding and msikes no payments for these activities,
with the exception of one congressionaUy-mandated pilot project in Southern Cali-
fornia. Only trained INS Adjudications Officers conduct naturalization interviews
and adjudicate apphcations; these responsibihties are not delegated to any other
party.
Community organizations, schools, foundations and clubs also play an active role
in celebrating citizenship at swearing-in ceremonies, as they have for decades. Such
partnership efforts help to build bridges and create cohesion between new Ameri-
cans and established communities.
20
CONCLUSION
The Citizenship USA initiative is an ongoing project of the Service, and we expect
it to continue for the next several years as its innovations are institutionalized
throughout our system. As of today, naturalization applications are being processed
within acceptable timeframes. The number of incoming applications continues at
record levels, and we expect that it will remain high in the coming year. Ovu* focus
is to maintain our new level of capacity nationwide, to utilize additional means to
ensure the quality and timeliness of our adjudications, and to serve as a catalyst
for broad conununity participation in citizenship.
As I have described, the Immigration and NaturaUzation Service is meeting an
enormous challenge, implementing an innovative and responsive naturalization re-
form program with professionalism and soUd performance. As the Commissioner has
stated many times, she is very proud of the women and men of the Service. Admin-
istering the system that decides who can become a citizen of the United States is
a high honor and a great responsibility. The American people can remain confident
that we are dedicated to carrying out this public trust fully and faithfully.
Attachment 1
N-400 Pending Caseload by District— September 1995
Pending AOE ■
Total Pending
Servicewide
705.266
97,796
803,062
Los Angeles
New York City ...
San Francisco ...
Miami
Chicago
Newark
Houston
Boston
Dallas
San Diego
El Paso
Phoenix
Atlanta
Seattle
Washington, DC
Detroit
Baltimore
San Antonio
Harlingen
Philadelphia
New Orleans
Cleveland
Honolulu
San Juan
Denver
Kansas City
Butlalo
Portland, OR
St. Paul
Omaha
Helena
Anchorage
Portland, ME
221,962
112,811
98,867
46,165
43,181
6.432
22.807
17,193
6,471
14,621
12,948
12.166
7,723
8,780
7,592
7,281
6,547
6,505
6,271
5,198
4,921
3,505
3,486
3,160
3,135
2,647
2,140
1,929
1,732
741
391
349
317
52,247
18,000
16.423
9,380
75
54
1,617
221,962
112,811
98,867
98,412
61,181
22,855
22,807
17,193
15,851
14,696
12,948
12,220
9,340
8,780
7,592
7,281
6,547
6,505
6,271
5,198
4,921
3,505
3,486
3,160
3.135
2,647
2,140
1,929
1,732
741
391
349
317
'Applications Data Entered (ADE) are applications entered into the Naturalization Automated casework System (NACS). Applications Not
Data Entered (ANDE) are applications accepted by a District mailroom, but not data entered into NACS.
Senator Simpson. Now panel two is Paul Roberts, the chief exec-
utive officer of NaturaUzation Assistance Services, Inc.; and Rich-
ard Krieger, vice president of Marich Associates, Inc. Welcome to
both of you and we will look forward to having your remarks for
21
the record. Again, there is the time hmitation and we thank you
for observing that.
So if you will proceed in that order, Mr. Roberts, it is nice to see
you again. Did you rest well? You did. I saw you last evening. It
is not as bad as you think. It could get worse. Oh, no, no. I am
sorry. Welcome. It is good to have you here, so if you want to give
us a brief summary?
PANEL CONSISTING OF PAUL W. ROBERTS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, NATURALIZATION ASSISTANCE SERVICES, INC.,
LAKELAND, FL; AND RICHARD KRBEGER, VICE PRESIDENT,
MARICH ASSOCIATES, INC., ROCKVILLE, MD
STATEMENT OF PAUL W. ROBERTS
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Senator. Good morning. My name is
Paul Roberts and I am the CEO of Naturalization Assistance Serv-
ices, Inc. I would like to thank the chairman and members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today con-
cerning the INS standardized citizenship testing program and the
role Nat\u*aHzation Assistance Services has played, in partnership
with INS, in making the program a success.
NAS has over 2 years' field experience in the testing program,
and although the program has not been flawless, NAS is proud
that it has tested almost 150,000 prospective Americans and en-
abled many to become part of the American dream. NAS is con-
stantly striving to improve testing security and integrity, and to
that end NAS has increased security measures to further ensure
that NAS Hcensees strictly adhere to all rules and regulations.
As a matter of fact, an executive session to analyze and strength-
en NAS procediu-es in the area of compliance and security is occur-
ring as we speak. NAS has a zero-tolerance policy for cheating, and
the record will reflect that NAS has acted swiftly to revoke all li-
censees discovered and engaging in improprieties.
From the onset of NAS' participation in this program, it was evi-
dent to us that the concept of a partnership between the Govern-
ment and private industry would require constant vigilance and co-
operation between the two parties to ensure that the program's ob-
jectives and requirements were met to ensure the highest stand-
ards for admitting applicants to citizenship.
In that light, NAS has worked closely with INS to keep them in-
formed of our activities and operational methodologies, with the
goal of maintaining and increasing quality control. We have partici-
pated in numerous conference calls and meetings between INS and
the other nationally-approved testing entities. We have partici-
pated in national meetings of the national entities and the Service
at INS headquarters. We maintain an ongoing dialog with des-
ignated INS Uaison officials, and NAS conducts national con-
ferences for all of our licensees in which the latest standards and
procedures are reviewed and implemented. An NAS national con-
ference for licensees will be conducted in November.
Mr. Mike Williams, the former Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol,
and Mr. Dale Cozart, former Chief of the San Diego sector of the
U.S. Border Patrol, will direct all compliance and security activities
for NAS. This will ensure that NAS' licensees administer the
22
standardized citizenship test in a manner that preserves examina-
tion security and integrity.
In addition, NAS has employed additional security and compli-
ance personnel who will make random and unannounced visits to
our licensees' test sites, which would also include undercover oper-
ations. NAS has increased screening and monitoring of its licensees
and we will continue to suspend and cancel any licensee who de-
parts from our standards of integrity.
NAS has requested INS to raise the minimum pass percentage
of examinations from 60 percent to 70 percent. NAS discussions
with members of our advisory board revealed that the increased
passing percentage would raise the bar for applicants and would
enhance the program by ensuring the applicants possess sufficient
knowledge of the topics addressed by the examination.
We also believe that the elimination of a program standard
which requires that administrators read test questions orally to ap-
plicants would enhance the test's ability to assess an applicant's
English comprehension. Elimination of this program standard
would enable test centers to simultaneously distribute different se-
ries of examinations to applicants, thereby significantly reducing
the possibility of cheating by the applicants.
For example, if proctors were not required to read the questions
aloud during the test, each applicant could be given a different test
drawing from the same bank of questions, thereby preventing ap-
plicants from copying one another's answers. NAS is implementing
an exit identification process in which applicants will be required
to display their green card and the completed test book filed prior
to leaving the testing area. We also plan on implementing a finger-
print program for all testing applicants. Specifically, we plan to
modify our test booklets to accommodate thumb prints for each ap-
plicant who participates in the program.
There certainly are some m3^hs that surround the program and
I would like to talk about a couple of those, two of them. One is
that by passing a standardized citizenship test, that person auto-
matically becomes a U.S. citizen. That is not true. The second one
is that we guarantee citizenship by passing standardized tests. The
standardized citizenship test does not certify an applicant's eligi-
bility for citizenship, nor does it certify one's proficiency in spoken
English.
Another myth is that taking a test with a national entity puts
an applicant at the head of the citizenship queue and this is simply
not true, also. Another myth is that the program is not adminis-
tered with the highest level of test security and integrity. NAS' vig-
ilance in this area has led to the investigation and cancellation of
licensees who have not met our high standards for test administra-
tion and security.
We have always worked in cooperation with the INS, including
working directly with INS agents in the investigation and, when
necessary, prosecution of persons and firms involved in alleged im-
proprieties. We recognize that these efforts require a continual re-
view to improve our techniques.
The final m3rth is that the standardized citizenship test is pri-
marily delivered by small, unreliable licensees. NAS includes
among its licensees the following organizations: Catholic Charities;
23
American Red Cross; United Farm Workers; Dade County Public
Schools; Collier County Public Schools; Riverside, CA, Public
Schools; New Haven, CT, adult education centers; Solano County,
CA, Department of Health and Social Services. Finally, all of our
Hcensees are subject to the same guidelines and procedures for
maintaining examination security and integrity.
Thank you.
Senator Simpson. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul W. Roberts
I would like to thank Chairman Simpson and members of the Subcommittee for
the opportunity to appear before you today concerning the INS Standardized Citi-
zenslup Testing Program (the "Program") and the role Naturalization Assistance
Services, Inc. (^AS") has played, in partnership with INS, in making the Program
a success.
NAS has over two years' field experience in the testing Program and although the
Program has not been flawless, NAS is proud that it has tested almost 150,000 pro-
spective Americans and enabled many to become part of the American dream. NAS
is constantly striving to improve testing security and integrity and to that end NAS
has increased security measures to further ensure that NAS's licensees strictly ad-
here to all rules and regulations. As a matter of fact, an Executive session to analy-
sis and strengthen NAS procediu-es in the area of compliance and security is occur-
ring as we speak. NAS has a zero tolerance policy for cheating and the record will
reflect that NAS has acted swiftly to revoke all hcensees discovered in engaging in
improprieties.
Initially, I will provide a brief overview of the role of NAS and other entities in
naturalization process to illustrate how the Program functions.
Next, I will address issues concerning the Program raised by the Subcommittee,
particularly relating to test integrity and security. Included in this section will be
recommendations for strengthening the Program.
Lastly, I wiU review the benefits and myths surrotmding the Program.
After this brief statement, I will be pleased to answer questions concerning NAS's
participation in the Program.
I. standardized testing in the naturalization process
To understand the Program, it is useful to review the process of becoming a U.S.
citizen — naturahzation — and how it works. First of all, it is important to remember
that only legal permanent residents of the United States — those with so called
"green cards" — are ehgible to apply for U.S. citizenship. To reach this point, an ap-
phcant must have been admitted as a lawful permanent resident and be a person
of good moral character, and meet statutory residency requirements.
The first step in the process is to file an application for naturalization with the
INS. The application requests the information needed by the INS to determine
whether the applicant is eligible for citizenship. There are many requirements to be-
come a citizen; passing the standardized citizenship test is only one part of the com-
plex process.
The second step consists of a comprehensive interview with an INS examiner
which cannot generally be waived. At the interview, the prospective citizen is ques-
tioned on the information provided in the application and tested in English on the
fiindamentals of U.S. history and government and ability to read and write English.
As an alternative, an applicant may take a standardized citizenship test adminis-
tered through a National Testing Entity, such as NAS, and then would not be re-
tested on U.S. history and government by the INS examiner. However, the applicant
must still demonstrate English language ability by answering questions in English
concerning the application. Once again, the interview is conducted in English.
In other words, the INS examiner tests on spoken English while the National
Testing Entities test on history, government and written English. INS always has
a double check on an apphcant's qualifications for citizenship. INS does far more
than rubber stamp a test given by an entity such as NAS.
The alternative citizenship testing program permits INS officers more time to con-
duct in-depth interviews on the other substantive requirements to ensure persons
of bad moral character and criminals are not granted citizenship.
24
Finally, if the examiner approves the application, after a final review of qualifica-
tions, the applicant will be scheduled for a natviralization ceremony, where citizen-
ship is officially conferred.
II. NAS POLICIES
From the onset of NAS's participation in this Program, it was evident to us that
the concept of a partnership between government and private industry would re-
quire constant vigilance and cooperation between the two parties to ensure that the
Program's objectives, and requirements were met to ensure the highest standards
for admitting applicants to citizenship. In that hght, NAS has worked closely with
INS to keep them informed of NAS's activities and operational methodologies with
the goal of maintaining and increasing quality control.
Examples of NAS's achievements in this area have included the following:
Psirticipation in numerous conference call meetings between the Service and the
other six nationally approved testing entities concerning voluntary modifications of
Program delivery standards and quality control issues.
Participation in a national meeting of the National Testing Entities and the Serv-
ice at INS Headquarters, in which each of the National Testing Entities shared pro-
prietary information concerning testing techniques, security procedures, and item
development criteria.
Maintain ongoing dialogue with designated INS liaison officials.
NAS conducts National Conferences for all NAS licensees in which the latest
standards and procedures are reviewed and implemented. A NAS National Con-
ference for licenses will be conducted in November. It is mandatory that at least
two representatives from a testing entity attend.
Mr. Mike Williams, the former Chief of the United States Border Patrol, and Mr.
Dale Cozart, former Chief of the San Diego Sector will direct all compliance and se-
curity activities for NAS. This will ensure that NAS's licensees administer the
standardized citizenship test in a manner that preserves examination security and
integrity. In addition, NAS has employed additional security and compliance person-
nel who will make random and unannounced visits to NAS licensees' test sites, in-
cluding undercover investigations.
NAS has increased screening and monitoring of its licensees and will continue to
suspend and/or cancel any licensees who depart from NAS' standards of test integ-
rity.
III. NAS RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENHANCE PROGRAM SECURITY
NAS has requested INS to raise the minimum pass percentage for the examina-
tion from sixty percent (60 percent) to seventy percent (70 percent). NAS's discus-
sions with members of the NAS Advisory Board revealed that the increased passing
percentage would "raise the bar" for applicants and would enhance the Program by
ensuring that applicants possessed sufficient knowledge of the topics addressed by
the examination.
NAS believes that the elimination of a Program standard which requires that ad-
ministrators read test questions orally to applicants would enhance the test's ability
to assess an applicant's English comprehension by requiring candidates to read and
understand written test questions and apply their comprehension toward selecting
the appropriate test answer. In addition, as a security measure, elimination of this
Program standard would enable test centers to simultaneously distribute different
series examinations to applicants, thereby significantly reducing the possibility of
cheating by the applicants. For example, if proctors were not required to read the
questions aloud during the test, each applicant could be given a different test draw-
ing on the same bank of questions, thereby preventing apphcants from copying one
another's answers.
Require applicants to pass a spoken English proficiency test before being admitted
to the standardized citizenship test. If a spoken English test was required, many
of the public complaints about the program would be addressed.
NAS plans to implement an exit identification process. Applicants will be required
to display their green card and completed test booklet to test proctors prior to exit.
This process will prevent eligible apphcants from paying an individual to take their
test.
NAS plans implementation of a fingerprint program for all testing applicants.
Specifically, NAS plans to modify its test booklets to accommodate a thumb print
for each applicant who participates in the Program. NAS believes that this measure
will significantly reduce the possibility of one person illegally taking the test for an-
other person.
25
IV. BENEFITS OF THE STANDARDIZED CITIZENSHIP TESTING PROGRAM
The Program has numerous benefits to the government and taxpayers. First, by
re-allocating time normally spent conducting civics examinations, INS officers are
able to concentrate on a more thorough review of the applicant's qualifications and
eUgibihty as a potential United States citizen. This "freeing up" of time allows offi-
cers to better screen citizenship applicants.
Second, by utihzing the standardized citizenship examinations, INS officers' pro-
ductivity is increased, thereby reducing the need for additional INS personnel.
Third, this Program is not funded by tax dollars.
Fourth, the expertise of the National Testing Entity in delivering standardized ex-
aminations affords apphcants a more uniform less subjective, test of their pro-
ficiency.
V. CLARIFICATION OF VARIOUS MYTHS SURROUNDING THE STANDARDIZED CITIZENSHIP
TESTING PROGRAM
Perhaps the most popular myths siurounding the Program are that an applicant
who passes a standardized citizenship test will:
Automatically become a U.S. citizen; or
Will be "guziranteed" U.S. citizenship.
This clearly is not the case. The standardized citizenship test does not certify an
appUcant's eUgibUity for citizenship, nor does it certify one's proficiency in English.
As discussed earUer, after filing an application for natiu-alization, an applicant must
appear for an interview with an INS examiner. At the interview the examiner ques-
tions the appUcant concerning the application for naturalization to determine eligi-
bility for citizenship. If the applicant has failed to fulfill any of the many require-
ments for naturalization, the application will be denied. The naturalization inter-
view is conducted in English, with some exceptions.
Another myth is that taking a test with a National Testing Entity puts an appli-
cant at the head of the citizenship queue. This is simply not true. All applicants
are interviewed at INS in order of application filing, whether previously tested by
an entity or at ENS.
Yet another myth is that the Program is not administered with the highest level
of test security and integrity. NAS's vigilance in this area has led to the investiga-
tion and cancellation of licensees who have not met NAS's high standards for test
administration and security. NAS has always worked in cooperation with the INS,
including working directly with INS agents in the investigation and, when nec-
essary, prosecution of persons and/or firms involved in alleged impropriety. NAS
recognizes that these efforts require continual review to improve NAS's investigative
techniques.
Another myth is that the standardized citizenship test is primarily delivered by
small, unreUable Ucensees. NAS includes among its licensees the following:
CathoUc Charities
American Red Cross
United Farm Workers
Dade County Florida PubUc Schools
CoUier County Florida Public Schools
Riverside Cedlfomia Public Schools
New Haven Connecticut Adult Education Centers
Solsmo County California Department of Health and Social Services
San Luis ObispK) California Literacy Council
Finally, all of NAS' licensees are subject to the same guidelines and procedures
for maintaining examination security and integrity.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time and attention. I would be happy to an-
swer the Subcommittee's questions.
Senator Simpson. Mr. Krieger, nice to see you again, sir.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD KRIEGER
Mr. Krieger. Thank you; nice to see you again, Senator. Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Kennedy, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to
appear before you today to speak of the Marich Associates Author-
ized Citizenship Testing Program and the citizenship services we
provide.
26
Since October 5, 1994, the Marich Associates has been author-
ized by INS to conduct standardized citizenship testing. We con-
ducted our first citizenship test in mid-December 1994. In accord-
ance wdth the program notice of June 28, 1991, in the Federal Reg-
ister, which states, "The testing entity must ensure, if concurrently
providing test preparation, that test standards are strictly fol-
lowed." Some Marich citizenship tests also provide test preparatory
classes. One-third of our sites do not provide other services in con-
junction with naturalization. If you can correct the testimony, sir,
we had omitted the words "do not."
Marich currently has 44 citizenship sites that produce an aver-
age of 24 tests a month. We have tested just over 17,316 people
since we began, and 13,054 have passed our tests, for an average
of approximately 75 percent. The Marich Program provides a high
degree of test and program security. We have provided INS and the
immigration subcommittees of both Houses copies of the Marich
regulations and procedures which incorporate the entire scope of
INS procedures and requirements concerning U.S. citizenship test-
ing.
Marich beheves that both the INS and Marich, as a testing en-
tity, have responsibilities to the American people for the provision
of ethical, supervised, and fee-reasonable U.S. citizenship services
that come under our aegis. We believe that when Marich arranges
with a site for the rendering of services, the community and the
alien do not differentiate between Marich and that site by viewing
that only the test is from Marich and the other services are pro-
vided by the site.
In conjunction with this philosophy and the belief that we must
ensure the ethical standards of U.S. citizenship programs, we have
developed a process of direct on-site Marich supervision of all tests
and test preparatory classes, as well as issuing strict guidelines on
N-400 preparation supervised by an attorney. Further, we have es-
tablished a strict, reasonable fee for services that cannot be altered
by a site.
About 20 percent of our applicants take our citizenship test pre-
paratory classes. About 25 percent have their fingerprints and pho-
tographs done by our sites, and about 10 percent have their N-
400's prepared by our sites. None of our sites may provide these
ancillary services outside of Marich, with the exception of a site
that is a Board of Immigration Appeals-approved agency or an
agency receiving a community development grant which is super-
vised. Additionally, no site may provide ancillary services to an in-
dividual who is not tested by the site.
Listed below are some other important facts about Marich's serv-
ices. Marich has local area site supervisors who, as independent
contractors, work directly for Marich. They are present at every
citizenship test and test preparatory class given by a site. Marich
uses several different multiple choice tests at each test session so
that individuals sitting next to each other do not have the same
multiple choice test. Marich provides a citizenship test preparatory
class that was designed in conjunction with a former professor of
the University of Pennsylvania and a faculty member from Brevard
Community College.
27
Marich requires representatives from all sites attend a training
program of 4.5 hours before they may begin operation. Marich per-
mits preregistration for tests up to 14 days before the test. The
standardized citizenship test consists of 20 multiple choice ques-
tions and 2 dictated sentences. In order to pass the test, the notice
of program specifies an applicant must answer at least 12 ques-
tions correctly and write 1 sentence correctly.
In addition, Marich requires that the portion of the test answer
sheet that deals with personal information be correct and that the
answer sheet is signed. Further, there can be only one handwriting
on the answer sheet. Marich sites never receive the multiple choice
questions or sentences for the citizenship tests. The citizenship
tests are in the hands of our supervisors and not the sites. The su-
pervisor brings the tests to the test session and leaves with them
after the test. The supervisor selects the 2 sentences from a list of
30 sentences that we provide our supervisors and change periodi-
cally. No sentence may be given at consecutive test sites and no
sentence may be used more than three times at any site.
We are proud of the supervisors that work for us. They are
degreed, ranging from a B.A., Ph.D., LL.B. Our supervisors also in-
clude a former U.S. ambassador and coordinator for refugee affairs.
We are equally proud of our citizenship sites and the services to
the community they provide with Marich. They are a credit to the
concept of U.S. (rovemment-private sector partnership and the di-
verse composition of this Nation. They include community and jun-
ior colleges; school systems; YMCA's; YMHA's; Vietnamese, Cam-
bodian, Hmong, Lao, Hispanic, Indian, Jewish, Arabic, Afro-Amer-
ican, Korean, PoUsh and Russian agencies.
Just to conclude. Senator Simpson, we were greatly distressed
about the recent media portrayal by "20/20" of citizenship testing.
While we cannot comment about the validity of the statement
made in the program that involved one site provider, and neither
Marich nor the other entities were mentioned directly, we felt the
program was blatantly one-sided and an unfair depiction of the
program and, by implication, of Marich as well.
Marich provided to "20/20" a listing of our sites, operational pro-
cedures, and testing dates for January. We invited them to come
without informing us of when they would be attending. We asked
that they inform INS, not Marich, of the tests they would be at-
tending; that they not photograph our tests, nor record the dictated
sentences; and that they be sensitive to the individuals taking the
tests. To the best of our knowledge, they have never attended one
of our tests and they took pains to only televise the operations of
one single site of one single entity.
We have constantly provided all INS district offices with the
dates of our tests and test preparatory classes and have invited
them to come in without informing us. We have extended the same
invitation to the staffs of both the Senate and the House Sub-
committees on Immigration, and have instructed all of our super-
visors to allow these people into the program as observers.
28
I will save the rest for later, sir, but I would ask your permissipn
to enter into the record these 6 letters that we have from rep-
resentatives of our sites.
Senator SIMPSON. Thank you, and they will be entered in the
record.
Mr. Krieger. Thank you, sir.
[The letters referred to follow:!
29
Suzanne Sareini City of Dearborn
Couneilwoman
September 1, 1996
Honorable Richard Krieger, Director
Marick Gtizenship Services
17104 Laburm Court
R/fekvUU,MD 20SS5
Dear Mr. Krieger,
lam Mniting to you as the first Arab-American elected in the City of Dearborn and for
almost a decade, the only Muslim to hold any elective office in the United States.
My father came to this country at the age of eighteen in search of a better life for his
family and to enjoy ^te very haste freedoms that our Constitutijtn affords us. My
father, like millioHS of other immigrants played a major role in the development of this
country and I am very proud of my Lebanese tthnie heritage.
I wish to thank you for the citizgnship programs that Marick Associates is provitSng in
Ihr Gty of Dearborn. I have seen the results first hand and lean utytvithout a doubt
that this is one of the most cre^Stable immigration program that I have seen offered in
a community center.
I wish to commend you and your staff on the professionalism and integrity with witch
your program is operated. It is a breath of fresh air.
If I can be of any senice to you or your staff, please do not hesitate to call
Sincerdy,
'/neilwoman Suzanne Sareini
CITY HALL • 13«<S MICHIGAN AVENUE • DEARBORN. MtCHIGAM 4S126
CITY HALL (313) M3.2«rM • FAX (313) 943-2842
Home Town of Henry Ford
41 -Sn'* Q7 _ o
30
MOSHOLU MONTI FIORf COMMUNITY CtNTtR hat Mta chaalcs newman suilding • mso (X kals mi ■ browi, ny kusi
(T1l)Nt-4000- TAX « (711) ni-uu
Septembers, !<)%
Honorable Richard Kneger
P.O. Box 9130
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20898-Q1 '^O
Dear Richard,
I wanted to take this opportunity lo ihank you for your assistance in helping our agency lo serve
immigrants In the past two years, the Marich-L'nired Stales Citizenship Program has endhled the
Mosholu Montcfiorc Community Center to ser^c hundreds of ininiigrants who wnnt to become
United States Citizeas
Thanks to ycur professional training and supervision, we have been able to oiler Preparation
Courses, Citizenship Tests, Finger Printing, Photo, and N400 assi.stance I have been impressed
with the seriousness and profession-iIiBm of your staff and the high standards of youi program
) must share with you that T always sleep better at night knowing that the Marich-United Siate.s
Citizenship Program adheres to the full letter of the law and always follows all the rules set down
by the Immigration and Natiirali7aiinn Service
1 feel confident that as mure and luoii; iiimiigiaius reach out to us for assistance, wc arc offering
the very best service possible
Don Bluestone, MS W.
Executive Director
A
tUFTUHItU »1 IM£ lUA FEDERATION OF JEWKH PHILANTWOP^tS
AND THE INITIO WAV OF CREATEf N(W tORC
jcc
31
x*i2H£*/^
-*^ii^^'^
New York Metropolitan Martin Luther King, Jr.
Center For Nonviolence
CXtober4,1996
QiffFntier
Executive Dirraor
Honorable Richard Krieger
Vice Presidant
MARICH atizenship Services
17104 Laburnum Court
Rockville, Maryland 20855
Dear Mr. Krieger.
Hie New York Metropolitan Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolence
has had the pleasure of working with MARICH A.ssodatPs in the
coordination of services that assist legal inxmigrants in becoming U.S.
Citizens. These services have included courses in U.S. Iliilory aiid
Government, administering the MARICH Standardized Citizenship Test,
Fingerprinting & Photographing and assistance in filling out the N400
Application for citizenship.
Our association with MARICH began on April 4, 1995. Througliout this
period of time, MARICH Associates has supervised our tests and courses.
Their site supervisors have been thorough, punctual, pleasant and very
professional.
Both Marlene and Richard Krieger, the principles at MARICH, provide
excellent leadership in gtiiding their Citizenship Service Sites. They are
always availdble or. If out of town, they quickly return our calls. Their
knowledge of immigration laws, policy and pending legislation is very
thorough. At no time have our questions gone imai\swered. They are always
trying to improve the services and make sure that the highest level of
honesty and integrity is maintained.
Through their site supervisors, MARICH has built in safpgu^rds that prevent
dishonesty, cheating or fraud. It is a pleasure to work with such an
organi7.aiion and we look forvs-ard to a long and productive a:^bodation.
eclor
576 EAST IC^TH STREET • BRONX. NFW YORK 10456 • (718 589-7858 • FAX. (718) 589-7973
32
SEVA COMMUNITY SERVICES
137-36 Jamaica Ave., Jamaica NY 11435
Phone: (718) 297-5809 Fax: (718) 297-5815
October 4, 1996
Dear Mr. Krieger:
The Citizenship Ser\ices sponsored by Marich Associates is benefiting our
Community tremendously.
This "one-stop" service is extended to resident in Queens and its bordering counties
of Brooklyn and the Bronx. Seva Community services was instrumental in assisting
approximately tAvo thousand legal immigrants to become Naturalized American.
The Marich Program is verj time effective since it offers a "one-stop" ser>ice
(Citizenship Preparatory Course, Test, Pictures and Fingerprinting and N-400
Application forms).
This Program is very disciplined and unique since it is the only Testing Program
that sends a "SuperA isor" to its respective sites during a Test and Course. With the
help of Marich Associates legal immigrants will be eligible for all the benefits to
which other Americans are entitled to.
Since mid-June Seva Community Ser\ ices has received a 200 percent increase in the
number of citizenship inquiry calls every month. The number of Test applicants
has also increased by 200 percent.
Local community Radio and Television Programs has responded verv positively to
this Citizenship Program. Churches of all different ethnicity have invited mc from
time to time to do open-houses. For example on Sunday-September 8th I was
invited to speak at a Hindu Church in Queens, NY (a congregation of
approximately 200 people). On Monday 9th September approximately fifty people
from that congregation called for additional information on "How to become a
citizen", and additional forty (40) came to our premises to apply for their
citizenship. Seva Community Ser\'ices under the direct supenision of Marich
Associates is making every effort to educate the community on "WHY IT IS
IMPORTANT TO BECOME AN AMERICAN CITIZEN".
Page 1
33
Coinniciils of Coniiiiunity Leaders :
The Citizenship Program offered by Seva Community Ser>ices caters for the need of the
entire community regardless of etiinic background.
Dr. Dhanpaul Narine
Communitj' Educator
Teacher- Board of Ed. N.Y.
"An excellent service that should be extended to other communities - (here are
people who are not quite educated and as such when it comes to citizenship they
need special guidance. This scr\ ice offers that guidance."
Beverley South
Bronx Church of God (Seven Day)
"Citizenship Services at Seva Community Ser> ices in Queens, caters for the needs of
the community."
Caribbean Daylight
Monday April 8th, 19%
"Seva Comniunit}' Ser>ices - helping legal immigrants to become Naturalized
Americans."
Prime News - The Guyana
Caribbean experience
Friday - May 3rd, 1996
Kamla Ramkissoon
Site Manager
Page 2
34
i
m
CASITA MARIA INC
Gateway to a Bhsht^ Future
S»af d Of Oifectof s
Mis Fra;'«W. 0'<««ff«
Arre lui^rrjKf t -jt,
Oiar.a/a Ocujiai
h.d'<>' Bar/
M«mfccrs
Mr wnlfgnr^ K. f :oc.:
»,v >.:■. ?M F.^.-ics J
^^l Frark f fACiOa
/>v^ >c*V' Rec, cTK' tjs
3eu-iON 'At.ii-ic,
Ocla&er7, 1996
Honorable Richard Krieger, Dir.
Marich AsscKiates
17104 LaBumun Court
Rockv(«e, MO 20855
Dear Honorable Krieger;
I wr8e to jfou to share some of the •jnreported outcomes. \Miich
as an adrmrlstrator, I do not get ts report about on tho
Naturallza^on Citizenship Program we offer. Very otten, as you
k^a^M, matt of our reports relate to hard data and not wriat I caN
the soft parts of the program.
Since we began offering the Natu.'^lizaiion Citizenship Program in
1 935, vt/K have aaaisCcd over 300 immigrams to t58come
Naturalized Citizens. We have done this, ttianks to your
certification of community Dasea organJzatiorsiike o;jfs as sites
for immioranis to Begin the process of tjecoming Naturafized
Citkens. Tnts certification has allowed our community residents,
mostly wofXing dass immigrants wito because thfty hold two or
sometimae three jobs, find ro time to attend the b^o days of
traitidriS and one oay of te«ti/)g, as required, in addition, the
opportunity of being in their familiar surroundings, coupled with
tha coura« and ttn^t being offei-ed during evenings and weekends
nas maaec it much more flexfcte for our comnrwnity residents to
fmaHy have their dreams of tjecoming Americans come true.
Sincerely yours,
"b^nda Vega, CSW
Dir., Agcicy Services
Ca?^ K'fi\A S»rt:teri irrii ^vm-k. ViSi Si.tdso.t 5t . Dror>; jJV '0+.^/'?, Tel 718 589 2530 =dx 71 S-S-S-S-'itiii
Cs've'Cornrr'jii:/ Colter 55 Eosc 'oarv:! St , wvw^iA |;y 10C29, Tei £12-2a9-2/Cfl
Carsi Senio' Ccrtc.- 307 Eiict r,6:h it . N<2v, yor*, mV iXA-;', 7«. J \'^.■^m-^^'>'>
Fvuticted fcy M'j Chores i I. XidAr ond Mrc. W Illam^C 0'K8s(t« In 1 va4
.Vn*v Pm^mrm I'aiued unJa tu/Coc; n7[*7 ffjc Ni^y Ki-it C't; D-:p<yrTr.err for itc.^S"^
35
JABAD LUBAVITCH
605 Ocean Parkway * Brooklyn, NY 11218 * « (718) 854^)006 * Fax: (718) 871-6955
October 7, 1DS6
Honorable Richard Krieger
MARICK Citizenship Services
17104 Laburn'om Court
Rockvilie, KD 20055
Dear Kr. Krieger,
Ws. at Chabad Lubavitch cf Kensington, as a pare of the
Int'Si.i'a.ticir.al LiubAvii^ch Moveirisnt,, ave serving and providing social
and spiritual needs to cur coirnranity. Specially the r.ev; Russicin-
Jev.'ish iirir.igrants, living in the "zens of thousands in our area.
Afhpr dpra(i(i>=! nf ^nffp-mg htsh-inn th(» iron rur'.ai-i?^ linder thp
communist regime, they came here in this free country with a real
hope tor -a toright tuzure 3n<5 freedom.
The possibility you gave us to provide services and
assistar.ce in becoming US Citiz-sns for this immigrante are most
irr^ortant. For the year and a half since v;e start the program of
administering che warich standardized citizenship Tests,
preparatory classes in US Histoiy and Gcvernirient, assistance in
filling cut N-400 Fonr.s and Fingerprinting, thousands of the
inirriigrants want thru our Center and ejipressed thanks and
appreciation to Marich Associates.
We v.'ould like to wish you, Mr. and Mrs. Krieger much success
in all your work, especially in your great efforts to help the
iiTcnigrants around the country' .
Wishing you a Healthy and Sweet New Year,
Sincerely yours,
-^^^:^^€ r. ^-^.
F3bbi Moshe C. Levin
Executive Director
36
Senator SiMPSON. Well, I appreciate your remarks here. For Mr.
Roberts, we all know of the controversy concerning the fraud by
some testers; the suspension of operations in November 1995; a
stipulation agreement under the threat of litigation from your
counsel, due in part to very lengthy and costly litigation which
could arise, and millions at stake.
So what is your side of the story? You agree there have been
problems. Why did they happen? Do they happen because your li-
censees are profit organizations? It seems to me one serious prob-
lem is if you license your activities to "nonprofits" — and you name
some. Catholic Charities, the Red Cross. I don't think that gives
quite a tremor to those of us in Congress as to the licensing of prof-
it agencies who have a bottom line, which is success, which is
showing figures that they are doing their job and doing it magnifi-
cently, and they always will. So I think that is going to be a prob-
lem.
But how did it all happen? How do you intend to prevent such
problems in the future? What is INS doing now to oversee your op-
erations before and after, and what experiences and training have
you yourself personally had in the field of testing in these areas,
because obviously this is going to receive a great deal of attention
and this is your opportunity to explain what has happened?
Mr. Roberts. We certainly have redoubled our efforts in the
monitoring. As was stated by the first panel, there are some new
rules that came out October 1 that we are glad to see that will cer-
tainly enhance the program. The first suspension in November
1995 was based primarily on a news report out of St. Paul. We
never had the opportunity at any point to present our side of that
particular news piece, which we would have liked to have done at
the time.
We hired Mr. Mike Williams and Dale Cozart to help us with our
monitoring, two nationally recognized people that have come on
board to once again redouble our efforts. I reiterate that we have
zero tolerance for cheating and when we find cheating or any kind
of inappropriate activity, we act swiftly to remove that licensee
from testing. Over 65 percent of our licensees are nonprofits. We
do have attorneys that test for us and we do have some forprofit
groups that are community-based organizations. They have now got
the IRS nonprofit status. So the large majority of our tests and li-
censees are from the nonprofit side.
Senator SiMPSON. You have no profit agencies as licensees, is
that correct?
Mr. Krieger. We have one, sir.
Senator Simpson. One?
Mr. Krieger. Right.
Senator Simpson. Why?
Mr. Krieger. Well, that was an individual that we had known
for a very, very long time and he was operating at a school system
and it worked well for us. When we originally started, we had four
forprofit agencies. We have closed all four of those, and we have
additionally
Senator SiMPSON. Why?
Mr. Krieger. Improprieties, sir; one of them for price-gouging,
one of them for attempting to commit fraud. And we are able to do
37
this. Having our supervisors at every site and every test, we know
exactly what is going on. One of the others was closed because he
tried to influence one of the monitors, and the fourth one was
closed for not adhering to contract regulations which specify that
if we don't have enough preregistration to hold the test, we can't
hold that test. The test is then moved over to another time.
So those were the four that we closed for that reason, but we
have also closed, sir, three members of the New York Immigration
Coalition; you know, nonprofit agencies. We closed four nonprofits,
one of them for price-gouging, one of them for trying to crowd too
many people into a test, another for disruptive activities during the
commission of a test.
As Paul said, we were very pleased to see the regulations and re-
quirements — rather, the requirements and procedures that INS
came out with on the 10th of September. As a point of record, we
had been implementing those at a stricter level well before that
and have reported that to the INS and to your office, with copies
of our regulations and requirements, sir.
Senator Simpson. I think there has been a lot more vigor since
we announced we would have these hearings some many weeks ago
in this area, and I think from reading of all of the material here,
we must begin to pay attention to the profit licensees, the forprofit
licensees. But, also, the nonprofit organizations may have an ideo-
logical motive or zeal that may be just as strong as the financial
aspects of the forprofit organizations. That is my experience, hum-
ble as it may be.
How many licensees do you have, Mr. Roberts? How many in-
spectors will you assign to monitor these licensees?
Mr. Roberts. We currently have 170 licensees. We have 5 re-
gional representatives, approximately 10 undercover people that
speak native languages, and currently Mr. Cozart and Mr. Wil-
liams are trying to recruit retired Border Patrol officers to help us
with the on-site unannounced inspections on tests.
Senator Simpson. Do you encourage unannounced site inspec-
tions?
Mr. Roberts. That is the only way we inspect sites, is unan-
nounced.
Senator Simpson. Do you encourage others to do that, like those
of us who have oversight and the INS?
Mr. Roberts. Absolutely.
Senator Simpson. At any time?
Mr. Roberts. Any time.
Senator Simpson. Just finally, you mentioned Dale Cozart and
Mike Williams. I have come personally to know them both, very
able people, former Border Patrol men. You have hired Skip
Tollifson a weekend after he left the INS. He was off the pajrroU
on Friday and you picked him up on Monday. How many other
former INS officers have you hired and how long after retirement
has that taken place?
Mr. Roberts. Those are the only INS officers that we have hired.
Senator Simpson. And how long did it take to — I mean, Mr.
TolUfson was a weekend and he was involved in monitoring your
organization as a member of the INS.
38
Mr. Roberts. He worked for INS. I don't think his primary re-
sponsibiHties were monitoring.
Senator Simpson. It was one of them, though, was it not?
Mr. Roberts. It could have been, yes.
Senator Simpson. Thank you.
Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. As I understand, historically about 80 percent
of the testing has gone on in INS and about 20 outside. Is that
your understanding?
Mr. Roberts. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. It has been going on for some period of time,
and I also understand that it is being reviewed within INS about
whether it ought to be enhanced or reduced. We didn't get into that
this morning and some time down the road maybe we will, but at
least that is being reviewed. But the idea is that this contracting
out has been going on over some period of time, as I understand
it. I don't know whether the more recent problems that you com-
mented on — whether those have been similar kinds of problems in
the past, but they certainly have to be addressed and dealt with.
I think it is important for the Americans who are watching this
to understand that even if they go on through, you have these very
unfortunate incidents where you have trimming or cheating on
these various programs. Even after they go through the test, the
individuals still have to go through an INS system and clearance,
isn't that right?
Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. They have to go through the interviews and
other provisions. It isn't just the fact that you give them a stamp
of approval, or any of these alleged sites give them the stamp of
approval and they automatically get their citizenship.
Mr. Krieger. No; Senator, they must file an N-400 form, finger-
print form, pictures, and supportive documents with the INS. If
they take the test with us and pass it, and it is the English exam-
ination, they still must be interviewed by an examiner to show that
they can speak and understand ordinary English.
If I can just make one correction, sir, we are not contractors. We
are authorized by the INS. We receive no funds from INS whatso-
ever to do this. The only funds that we receive and we divide with
our sites are from the fees paid by the aliens to take the test or
to take any other services.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, I think these issues have been raised
and they are enormously troublesome. You are going to have an op-
portunity to address them and we will obviously give you a chance
for that kind of response. You are certainly entitled to it, but obvi-
ously it creates an enormously adverse feeling among Americans;
I am sure by those individuals who want to become citizens, too.
I mean, most of them are out there pla3dng by the rules, tr3dng to
do their work, trying to study, trying to qualify on this, and they
find others are gimmicking the game on this thing. It is wrong
from every point of view.
So we will have a chance to review this in greater detail down
the road, but I appreciate your being here today.
Senator Simpson. Thank you very much, both of you. Thank you
very much, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Krieger,
39
We will go now to the third panel, Michael J. Feuer, Director of
the Board of Testing and Assessment of the National Academy of
Sciences, and Bert Green, professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins
University. We welcome you both to the panel and will appreciate
very much having your views in the order on the witness list.
Mr. Feuer.
PANEL CONSISTING OF MICHAEL J. FEUER, DIRECTOR,
BOARD ON TESTING AND ASSESSMENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY
OF SCIENCES, WASHINGTON, DC; AND BERT F. GREEN, JR.,
PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVER-
SITY, BALTIMORE, MD
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. FEUER
Mr. Feuer. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here to testify on issues related
to testing of immigrants seeking naturalization.
I am the Director of the Board on Testing and Assessment of the
National Academy of Sciences and an adjunct professor of public
policy at Georgetown University, but I testify today as a private
citizen with some expertise on testing and my remarks do not rep-
resent the opinions or positions of either the academy or George-
town University.
Section 312 of the Immigration Act codifies in law a notion that
is, at least on its surface, logical and understandable. New Ameri-
cans should be able to demonstrate an understanding of the Eng-
lish language, including an ability to read, write and speak words
in ordinary usage. Who would argue, indeed, that any American,
naturalized or not, doesn't need a basic command of English?
But in making this a condition for naturalization, the act
legitimates the use of "reasonable tests of literacy," as screening
devices, and provides legal backing to the principle that perform-
ance on a test can open or close the gate to naturalization. Given
the significance of the consequences associated with passing or fail-
ing such a test, the granting or den3dng of American citizenship —
surely, one of the most cherished credentials on Earth — it is par-
ticularly important to assure that the tests, if they are used for this
purpose, meet the highest professional and ethical standards in
their design, validation, administration, and interpretation.
I am going to summarize my testimony briefly. I have the writ-
ten version to be submitted for the record and I would like to just
focus on three main points. First, some general principles of sound
testing practices; second, some specific problems associated with
literacy testing; and, third, some caution flags about section 312 in
the light of these considerations.
On the general question of testing, to try to summarize that in
a minute would undoubtedly blaspheme 100 years' worth of very
important scientific and technological research in the field, but I
will give it a shot. Testing is a tool of information. It provides esti-
mates of human performance. Good tests are developed in a
lengthy, time-consuming, technologically sophisticated and costly
process, from design to item development to pilot testing, valida-
tion, administration, scoring, standard-setting, and ultimately the
drawing of fair and valid inferences based on test results.
40
Even under the best of circumstances, though, test results come
with some error. Some people who pass should have failed, some
who fail should have passed. In light of the fact that tests can
produce estimates with that kind of error, it is all the more impor-
tant that the purpose of the testing be well-defined and well under-
stood and the tests not be used probably ever as the sole basis for
making important decisions about individuals or groups or institu-
tions.
The second point is literacy testing, it raises some particularly
complicated questions. Intuitively, we may all feel that knowing
basic English usage is a worthy objective. Translating that concept
into criteria that would inform the development of tests and test
items and inferences from those tests is another matter. We have
many different kinds of literacy tests in use currently for many dif-
ferent purposes. Some are oriented toward early diagnosis of read-
ing difficulties in young children and can be useful in developing
instructional strategies. Others are meant to provide broader infor-
mation on the literacy of the whole population or of groups within
the population, such as the National Adult Literacy Survey and
other such instruments.
Others yet define literacy with respect to specific academic or
work-related competencies, such as verbal skill required for liberal
arts studies, let us say, or quantitative skill required, for example,
to go into accounting. Many colleges and universities use estab-
lished tests of English that are designed for students whose native
language is not English, and they use as one of the many criteria
to determine qualification for admission; emphasize the word
many.
In a word, then, the definition of literacy is complicated. It is
often controversial, and the assessment becomes even more com-
plicated and complex because of the need to determine the specific
purposes, the criteria, the sample population issues, standards, the
meaningfulness of scores, the enforcement of sound and ethical
principles of test use.
About section 312, it certainly does open the door for what people
in the testing world would refer to as very high-stakes testing, and
there are several important and related values that I think need
to be safeguarded in the application of this statute. Let me suggest
three directions, and this can be the basis perhaps for some further
discussion later.
Point No. 1 is that we need to define the purpose very clearly.
Is the testing indeed intended to screen out and deny citizenship
to individuals who meet other criteria, but fail to demonstrate basic
English language proficiency? If so, then the test is indeed in-
tended for use in very high-stakes decisions, and the procedures for
content specification, pilot testing, validation, scoring, and cut-score
determination need to meet th^ most exacting standards.
It would be ironic indeed if procedures used to admit newcomers
to the American way of life, which stands for fairness and justice,
were themselves unfair or unjust. It was mentioned earUer that
perhaps we need some kind of national, broad dialog, a consensus
process about exactly what kinds of standards of proficiency we
have in mind.
41
Two other points. I see the red hght is on, so I will cut them
down to one sentence each. Conduct extensive experimentation
with various tests to make sure that they actually serve the pur-
poses for which they are intended. And point No. 3, make sure that
we regulate this entire process effectively so that the integrity of
naturalization, as well as the integrity of testing, can be safe-
guarded.
Senator SiMPSON. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Feuer follows:!
Prepared Statement of Michael T. Feuer, Ph.D.
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Mi-
chael Feuer. I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify on issues related to
testing of immigrants seeking naturalization as American citizens. I am cvirrently
the Director of the Board on Testing and Assessment of the National Academy of
Sciences, and adjunct professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University. I have
been involved in research and analysis on matters of testing and public policy for
over a decade. Prior to joining the Academy I was a senior analyst and project direc-
tor at the Office of Technology Assessment, where I specialized in education, psycho-
logical testing, and human resources policy.
My testimony today does not necessarily represent the opinions or positions of the
Academy, the National Research Council, or the Board.
Section 312 of the Inunigration Act codifies in law a notion that is, on its surface,
logical and understandable: new Americans should be able to demonstrate "an un-
derstanding of the EngUsh language, including an ability to read, write, and speak
words in ordinary usage ***.*' Indeed, who would argue that any American — natu-
ralized or not— does not need a basic command of English? In making this a condi-
tion for naturalization, however, the Act legitimates the use of "reasonable test[s]
of * * * literacy" as screening devices, and provides legal backing to the principle
that performance on a test can open or close the gate to naturalization. Given the
significance of the consequences associated with passing or failing such tests — the
granting or denying of American citizenship, surely one of the most cherished cre-
dentials on earth — it is particularly important to assure that the tests meet the
highest professional and ethical standards in their design, validation, administra-
tion, and interpretation.
In my testimony I will focus on the following issues:
General principles for sound testing practice;
Specific issues related to tests of English literacy; and
Implications for the uses of tests in naturalization proceedings.
I. PRINCIPLES OF GOOD TEST PRACTICE: AN ABRIDGED GUIDE
Tests are tools of information. They provide estimates of knowledge or behavior
based on samples, and scores are therefore always subject to error.
The first step in the process of making a test, therefore, is to determine the pur-
poses to which the test information will be put. Who will use the data? What deci-
sions will rest on the scores? This is a seemingly simple and straightforward prin-
ciple — that definition of purpose should precede and inform design and application —
but it is often overlooked by test makers, test users, and policy makers who rely
on test data. In the US we do a great deal of testing, for many different purposes.
For example, we use tests to:
Diagnose various types of learning processes in students, and give teachers, par-
ents, and learners useful information to guide practice;
Check annual progress (achievement) of individual students or groups of students
in mastering subject matter;
Evaluate the condition of education in the nation as a whole, using such instru-
ments as the National Assessment of Educational Progress;
Provide information to employers about the expected performance capabiUties of
job apphcants;
Select new recruits into various training and specialty programs in the armed
services;
Provide information to college admissions officers about the expected academic
performance of student applicants;
Determine eligibility for special programs in education and training institutions
(e.g., special education, gifted and talented, firm-sponsored training, etc.); and
42
Assess the literacy — verbal, numeric, scientific, historical — of the population at
large or of specific groups within the population.
The importance of understanding the purpose of testing as a prerequisite to design
and administration cannot be overemphasized.
The next step is to develop items — short answer questions, essays, performance
tasks — that provide a reasonable measure of the broader domain of interest. For ex-
ample, if we are interested in testing an individual's mastery of the high school
science curriculum in a particular school district, we might design a test that in-
cludes different kinds of items (short answer questions to establish basic factual
knowledge, longer and performance-based items to establish scientific reasoning
processes), which together give a reliable measure of the test- taker's competence in
the defined subject area. Defining the subject area and Unking test items to content
are ingredients in what testing professionals call "vaUdity," i.e., the extent to which
a test measiires what it is supposed to measure. Obviously, a test that is intended
to measure the skills necessary to be a good science writer would be quite difierent
from a test intended to measure an individual's skill in performing chemical experi-
ments in the laboratory — even though they both, ostensibly, would measure some-
thing about science.
Writing test items that appear to cover the intended domain is just the beginning
of a crucial and often time-consuming process of "test validation," which refers to
the gathering of empirical evidence linking test performance to the broader domain
that the test is intended to estimate. Returning to the science example, this stage
in the design process involves careful scrutiny of test items by content experts, so
that, for example, questions about the molecular structure of cells are drawn fi"om —
and provide an indicator of — accepted scientific knowledge; administering the test
items to samples of students to explore empirically the ways in which items are in-
terpreted by potential test-takers; checking the relationship of their scores to other
independent sources of data about their science competency; comparing the accuracy
of different types of items; and, overall, developing a sound basis for using the test
beyond the experimental sample and as a basis for inferences about students' mas-
tery of the defined material. These are not simple or trivial exercises, and they re-
quire a deUcate blending of content expertise, psychological theory, statistical analy-
sis, and editorial finesse.
The next question becomes how to interpret the scores. Suppose we have a science
test with items that are well-suited to estimating mastery of a broader curriculum.
What does a score of 75 mean? Is 80 good enough? Obviously, a score is meaningless
unless it is understood to relate to something: if my body temperature is 103, that
is meaningful only because I know that average human body temperature is around
98. In educational and psychological testing, too, scores cannot be understood in a
vacuum. Test developers must therefore develop norms, or standards against which
to understand scores obtained by individual test takers. Some norms are established
by giving a test to a sample population that is representative of the population that
will later be given the real test; then, individuals who are tested can interpret their
scores in relation to the distribution of scores obtained in the representative popu-
lation. Although these so-called "norm-referenced tests" are sometimes criticized as
reinforcing competitive ranking and sorting, they are still widely used in many con-
texts; perhaps the most familiar is the nationally-normed educational achievement
test, results of which are presented to enable individual students to judge their per-
formance relative to a large nationally-representative sample of students in their
age and grade group. Alternatively, a test can be normed against a defined body
of knowledge, so that the score is not just a ranking of individuals compared to one
another but an estimate of one's knowledge relative to the ideal or total knowledge
one might theoretically have in a given subject. For such a test, a score of 75 sug-
gests something about how much of the curriculum the test taker has mastered.
Without belaboring the details, suffice to say that norming is, itself, an essential
part of the test design process, and an undertaking of substantial statistical com-
plexity that is both time-consuming and costly when done properly. Based on
norming studies and the precise definition of how test scores are indicators of future
performance, an important next step for tests used in screening, selection, and some
system-monitoring contexts is the determination of cutoff scores. This step essen-
tially involves asking the question: how good is good enough? Standard-setting and
the application of cutoff scores is, itself, a major subtopic in test theory and practice.
It is crucial to remember that test scores are estimates, and that no matter where
one puts the cutoff, some individuals who should have passed will fail and others
who should have failed will pass.
Assuming that test content and norms have been obtained, the next step is to as-
sure proper administration. To assure fairness and test vaUdity, it is obviously im-
43
portant that items remain secure. In addition, standardized tests are called that in
part because they are administered under vmiform conditions for all test-takers. (A
related issue is establishing acceptable conditions for variations from uniform ad-
ministration, in order to accommodate reUgious observance, physical disability, or
other extenuating circumstances. The design of testing accommodations is, in many
ways, nearly as complicated as the design of tests.)
The final step in sound test practice is scoring and score-reporting. With the ad-
vent of computer technology, standardized multiple-choice tests became increasingly
economical to score; in addition, there is minimal error in scoring these tj^jes of
tests. However, drawing inferences from scores is another matter, one that if not
handled with attention to the subtleties (and fragilities) of test design, norms, and
standards can lead to particularly serious mischief. Unfortunately, the history of
testing in the US is a mixed record of extraordinary progress in test design and use
and of egregious errors in the classification of individuals, groups of individuals, and
institutions.
II. TESTING ENGLISH LITERACY: ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
In the wording of the Immigration Act, naturalization is to be dependent on an
applicant's demonstrated abihty to "read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage
in the English language." Superficially, at least, this wording suggests that the first
condition for sound test practice — specifying content to be measured — has been sat-
isfied. But has it? What exactly is meant by "ordinary usage?" And how shall we
judge abiUty to read, write, and speak "ordinarily?" Indeed, though the framers of
the law may have had a strong intuitive understanding of their expectations of new
Americans, the law itself does not provide the kind of specificity that good test-mak-
ers would need to design appropriate instruments.
To understand why this is a more complicated issue than might meet the eye, con-
sider the issue of literacy testing in the US. What is meant by literacy? Is it func-
tional literacy, i.e., the cognitive skills without which people cannot function well
enough to hold a job? Is it numerical Uteracy at a level reqviired for college-level
calculus, emplo3Tnent in a fast-food outlet, or admission to an advanced program in
accounting? Is it verbal literacy at a level required to read labels on grocery prod-
ucts, write a letter to a member of Congress, or edit an encyclopedia of psychological
measurement. What levels are really required?
There are perhaps as many definitions of literary — and levels of literacy pro-
ficiency — as there are literate adults. The variety is reflected in the diversity of pro-
grams offered by schools, libraries, community organizations, churches, and govern-
ment agencies. Among the many literacy programs are "Time to Read," a national
volunteer program that emphasizes one-on-one and group interactions with assess-
ments that are intended to provide close interactions between tutors and learners;
reading programs in the Federal Prison System, which are more standardized-test
oriented; the City University of New York Adult Literacy Program, which specifies
that standardized tests should be only one component of assessment; and Com-
prehensive Adult Student Assessment System, used in all California programs that
receive federal Adult Basic Education fiinds, which emphasizes literacy as skills
needed for specific competencies.
Assessing literacy, therefore, is not trivial; it is simply not enough to say that lit-
eracy tests should assess an applicant's ability to read or write "simple words and
phrases * * *." without specifying more about the context in which appUcants are
expected to use those words and phrases in their lives. To illustrate this point, it
may be worth considering one of the more established and widely-used tests, the
Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). The TOEFL is used by many col-
leges and universities in their screening and selection of foreign students for admis-
sion to undergraduate and graduate programs. As part of the design and validation
process for TOEFL, scores are correlated with subsequent performance in various
academic programs; thus, performance on the test is a signal of a specific definition
of literacy that pertains to future academic work. In mentioning this example, I am
not endorsing the TOEFL, but rather drawing attention to the importance of context
in defining literacy and designing and validating tests.
III. TESTING FOR NATURALIZATION: PUTTING THE PRINCIPLES TO WORK
How might the principles of sound testing practice, and specific issues related to
testing literacy, be applied to the legal mandate found in Section 312?
1. Define the purpose more clearly
Is the testing intended to screen out and deny citizenship to individuals who meet
other criteria but fail to demonstrate basic EngUsh language abiUty? If so, then the
44
test is intended for use in reaching extremely "highest-stakes" decisions, and the
procedures for content specification, pilot-testing, validation, scoring, and cutoff
score determination need to meet the most exacting standards. It would be ironic,
indeed, if procedures used to admit newcomers to the American way of life, which
stands for fairness and justice, were themselves unfair or unjust!
Alternatively, if the test is intended as a basis for diagnosing English language
deficits and recommending programs of remediation, its design and validation would
necessarily be different. I mention this possibility in the hope that Congress will
consider the value in helping new Americans find their way to improving much-
needed literacy skills, rather than simply denying citizenship status to those who
do not yet possess those skills.
2. Conduct extensive experimentation with various tests
If the intent is to use tests as gatekeepers to citizenship status, then they need
to be rigorously evaluated with respect to the relationship between test scores and
some other criterion such as subsequent functioning at work or school. In a word,
tests approved for use in such a high-stakes context must undergo rigorous valida-
tion, lest potentially "literate" citizens be mistakenly denied entry or potentially "il-
literate" ones be admitted. (It is important to emphasize that both types of
misclassification error can occur even with tests that have been through extensive
validation; it would be useful to investigate the potential losses to American society
of both types of error, and incorporate that information in the broader validation
exercise.)
3. Regulate test use carefully
There are at least two important and related values to be safeguarded in the ap-
plication of Section 312: one concerns the integrity of the naturalization process, and
the other concerns the integrity of testing. Given the complexities associated with
defining concepts such as literacy, the enormous empirical work that would be re-
quired to demonstrate validity of different types of literacy tests for new Americans,
and the possibility of error in classification that can have dramatic individual and
social consequences, it is not entirely clear that tests should be used at all in the
naturalization process. If they are used, they need to be checked regularly against
validity evidence, and they need to be updated periodically to account for shifting
requirements of work, school, or other activities in which new Americans are ex-
pected to participate. Unless these conditions are met, it is likely that massive num-
bers of individusds will "pass" even if their literacy skills are questionable, or that
massive numbers will "fail" even though they are highly likely to become literate
and fiinction effectively as Americans. In the first scenario, the credibility of testing
is compromised; in the second scenario, the credibility of our citizenship process is
compromised. Both outcomes should be avoided.
Senator Simpson. Mr. Green, please.
STATEMENT OF BERT F. GREEN, JR.
Mr. Green. I am a professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins
University and my specialty is the technical aspects of the design
and evaluation of educational and psychological tests. I have been
a technical adviser for other departments of the Government.
My discussion assumes that new testing instruments are going
to be devised for assessing the ability of candidates for naturalized
citizenship to use the English language, as well as their knowledge
of civics. The comments also would apply to the evaluation of exist-
ing tests.
Tests should conform to the standards for educational and psy-
chological testing developed by the American Psychological Associa-
tion, the American Educational Research Association, and the Na-
tional Council on Measurement in Education. They have been re-
vised often and are usually recognized by most testing organiza-
tions. If I am representing anybody, I suppose it is those standards.
It is most important that the testing be objective and standard-
ized, which simply means that every candidate should be treated
exactly the same. Everyone deserves the same fair chance to sue-
45
ceed. It is not always easy to determine what is fair, but equal
treatment would seem to be fundamental.
In developing a standardized test, the first task is to specify its
content. What is to be tested? In this case, the content according
to the law is reading and writing English, as well as speaking and
understanding spoken English. In addition, some knowledge of U.S.
history and Government is required. For purposes of test develop-
ment, the content must be specified in much more detail. Expei-ts
in language testing and teaching should be consulted to assist in
preparing detail specifications which would then become a sort of
blueprint for the test. For example, ability to read what? Presum-
ably, signs, newspapers, instructions for using equipment, but not
novels. A committee of experts, and perhaps laypersons and
Congresspersons as well, should come to agreement about the par-
ticular nature of the content to be included.
Second, what tests should be prepared? Presumably, history and
government can be combined in one test, but should the four as-
pects of English usage be assessed by four separate tests or can
several aspects be combined into one test? If several tests are to
be used, then must the candidate pass each aspect or can excel-
lence in reading and writing make up for inadequate oral perform-
ance?
What test medium should be used? Today, many new tests, as
well as many old tests, are being given by computer. The paper-
and-pencil test is generally being supplanted. Computer-based tests
have the advantage of standardization, efficiency and security.
Also, where appropriate, individuals can work at their own pace,
so issues of test speediness are minimized.
In this instance, the test of history and government can certainly
be given by computer. Reading could also be tested by computer.
Writing may well require a written test. Oral language perform-
ance may require individual testing, although the use of audio
tapes or the audio capabilities of computers is feasible. The com-
puter is probably not up to evaluating spoken responses, but cer-
tainly it could record such answers for later evaluation b^' a trained
examiner.
Well, given content specifications and a choice of medium of ad-
ministration, then the test developer can readily develop a large
number of test questions, which we call items. A large number of
items is needed because some will turn out not to be very good. All
items should always be pretested to check that they are working
in the way they are supposed to. Statistical analysis of the results
of pretests can determine which items must be weeded out. A few
will turn out to be too easy or too hard or misleading.
Serious problems arise when testing persons for whom English
is not the first language. Lots of misunderstandings are possible in
those situations. It would be necessary to pretest the items with
persons having a variety of language backgrounds. A large number
of items is needed for a second reason which we have been hearing
about already today. If a paper-and-pencil test is used, there has
to be several versions for purposes of security and fairness.
In the computer version, a large bank of items should be avail-
able for the computer to draw upon. The best plan would be to use
the computerized mastery test which is designed to make accurate
46
pass/fail decisions, but not to distinguish between those who are
excellent from those who are only satisfactory. Nor do mastery
tests try to tell you how badly someone has failed. They focus on
the place where the decision has to be made. In such tests, the test
can proceed until a candidate clearly passes or clearly fails. This
may occur swiftly, within 10 or 12 items, or it might proceed for
many more items. These procedures are currently in use and would
seem to me very easily adapted to the current situation.
A third reason for developing many forms of the test is that one
or two forms can be disclosed and can be given to prospective can-
didates so that they will be familiar with what they would be ex-
pected to do on the test, also a common practice these days. The
operational test versions, of course, should be kept secure and not
disclosed.
The process of making sure that equivalent versions of the test
are, in fact, equivalent is called equating. It is highly statistical,
but it is a commonplace procedure. The Armed Services Vocational
Aptitude Battery, for an example, used for initial selection of can-
didates for military service tjqjically uses six equivalent versions at
a time and then replaces those versions with new versions every
few years. Today, that test is being given by computer and uses
two or more large banks of test items. Equating procedures guaran-
tees that all candidates are treated fairly even though they don't
take precisely the same test.
Well, once the tests have been developed, they should be checked
for reliability to make sure that if someone takes the test twice,
they should get about the same score or have the same decision
made about them. Validity is also an important issue that we could
discuss and I will discuss more in the written version.
Finally, setting passing scores is not easy. How good is good
enough? Sajang 60 percent or 70 percent ought to pass doesn't
mean anything when you come right down to it because 60 percent
or 70 percent of what, easy items or hard items? There are elabo-
rate procedures in place now for setting such standards. It involves
expert judgment and it is always open to discussion, but it can be
dealt with.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Bert F. Green, Jr.
My name is Bert F. Green, Jr. I am a professor of psychology at the Johns Hop-
kins University, Baltimore MD. My specialty is the technical aspects of the design
and evaluation of psychological testing and assessment. I have been an advisor on
testing matters for the U.S. Department of Defense, the Department of Labor, and
the Department of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress.
This discussion assumes that new testing instruments will be designed for assess-
ing the use. The test should conform to the Standards for Educational and Psycho-
logical Testing developed by the American Psychological Association, the American
Educational Research Association, and the National Council on Measvu-ement in
Education. It is important that the testing be standardized, which means simply
that every candidate should be treated the same. Everyone deserves the same fair
chance to succeed. It is not always easy to determine what is fair, but equal treat-
ment would seem to be fundamental.
The first task in developing a standardized test is to specify its content. What is
to be tested? In this case, the content includes reading and writing English, as well
as speaking and understanding spoken English. In addition, some knowledge of
United States history and government is required. For purposes of test development,
the content must be specSied in much more detail. Experts in language teaching
47
and testing may be useful in preparing the detailed specifications, which are a sort
of blueprint for the test. For example, ability to read what? Presumably signs, news-
papers, instructions for using equipment, etc., but not novels.
Second, what tests should be prepared? Presumably history and government can
be combined in one test, but shoula the four aspects of English usage be assessed
by four separate tests, or can several aspects be combined in one test. If several
tests or subtests are to be used, then must the candidate pass all aspects, or can
excellence in reading and writing make up for inadequate oral performance?
What test medivun shoiild be used? Today, many new tests, as well as many old
tests are being given by computer. The paper and pencil test is generally being sup-
planted. Computer-based test have the advantage of standardization, efficiency, and
security. Also, when appropriate, individuals can work at their own pace, so issues
of test speededness are minimized. In this instance, the test of history and govern-
ment can certainly be given by computer. Reading can also be tested by computer;
writing may require a written test. Oral language performance may require individ-
ual testing, although the use of audio tapes or the audio capability of computers is
feasible today. The computer is probably not up to evaluating spoken responses, but
it can certainly record such answers for later evaluation by a trained examiner.
Given content specifications and a choice of medium of administration, the test
developer can readily develop a large number of test questions, which are called
items or tasks. A large number of items is needed because some will turn out to
be poor items. All items should always be pretested to check that they are working
in the way they are supposed to. Statistical analysis of the resvilts of pretests can
determine which items must be weeded out. A few will turn out to be too easy or
too hard, or misleading. Serious problems arise when testing persons for whom Eng-
lish is not the primary language. It will be necessary to pretest the items with per-
sons having a variety of language backgrovmds.
A large number of items is needed for a second reason. If a paper/pencil test is
used, there should be several versions of the test, for purposes of security and fair-
ness. For the computer, a large bank of items should be available for the computer
to draw upon. The best plan would be to use a computer-based mastery test. A mas-
tery test is designed to make accurate pass/fail decisions. Such tests make no effort
to distinguish between those who are excellent from those who are only satisfactory,
nor do mastery tests try to tell how badly someone failed. The test's job is to deter-
mine whether the candidate passed or failed. The test proceeds until the candidate
clearly passes or clearly fails. That may occur swiftly, within ten or twelve items,
or the test may proceed for many more items. Usually the decision can be made
quickly. Current test theory has been developed so that equivalent tests can be
formed by selection from a Igirge bank of possible items.
A third reason for developing many forms of the test is that one or two forms can
then be disclosed, and can be given to prospective candidates, so that they will be
familiar with what they will be expected to do on the test. The operational test ver-
sions should be kept secure, and not disclosed.
The process of making sure that equivalent versions of a test are fact equivalent,
is called equating, and is highly statistical, but is a commonplace procedure in test-
ing organizations. The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, used for initial
selection of candidates for military service has in the past used six equivalent ver-
sions at a time, and has replaced them with new versions every few years. Today,
the test is being given by computer, and uses two or more large banks of test items.
Equating procedures guarantee that all candidates are treated fairly, even though
they don't take precisely the same test.
Once the tests have been developed, they should be checked for reliability. A test
is reliable when a person who takes the test twice, gets about the same score both
times. The scores may not be exactly the same, because some degree of measure-
ment error is inevitable, but the scores should be sufficiently stable to be beUeved.
For a mastery (pass/fail) test, reliability refers to the consistency of the pass/fail de-
cision.
Validity is another aspect of test quality. Validity refers to the extent to which
the text measvires what it is intended to measure. In this case, the main evidence
for assessing validity comes from a check of the test items to be sure they match
the test specifications, together with a judgment that the test specifications are ap-
propriate.
Setting passing scores is not easy. How good is good enough? Current practice in-
volves assembling subject matter experts to judge, for each test item, the likelihood
that someone with a borderline proficiency would answer the item correctly. Another
method involves giving the test to some persons who are clearly proficient and to
some who are clearly not adequately proficient, and determining the score that best
separates these known groups. None of the methods is foolproof. The issue of Stand-
48
ard-setting is getting much attention these days, and better methods will evolve. Ex-
pert judgment is inevitably involved. The problem is to obtain expert judgments in
a consistent manner.
Senator Sevipson. Thank you, doctor. In your testimony, doctor,
you say it is very important that tests be standardized, and indeed
we know that. And then we have this requirement, the abihty to
read, write and speak words in ordinary usage in the EngHsh lan-
guage — very different from the American language — as well as
knowledge and understanding — that is the phrase, "understand-
ing" — of the fundamentals of U.S. history and the principles and
form of Grovemment of the United States.
INS tests this English-speaking ability through the interview,
and a later witness will testify this morning that those interviews
are certainly less in time now than ever before because of the
standardized tests. So when we say the standardized test is some-
thing that is not the full requirement, it isn't, and we are all cor-
rect on that, but it is a larger quotient than it was before or else
we would not be reducing the time of the personal interview. Any-
way, that is conducted, and I don't beUeve there is a standard set
of questions or that every examiner requires the same level of abil-
ity.
Do you believe that this kind of process will provide the stand-
ardization that should be present or that we seek? Do you have any
suggestions about how the required level of English-speaking abil-
ity might be tested? I would also be interested in Dr. Feuer's
thoughts on that issue.
Mr. Green. Well, using an interview is always dangerous be-
cause of the interactions of the interviewer and the interviewee. So
it is always better, to the extent possible, to avoid individual one-
on-one testing. To some extent, that is not going to be possible
here, but it certainly can be done with written and reading testing.
With oral procedures, you can use tapes, and so on, to try to avoid
the individualization which those of us in the technical side of
things are always nervous about. It is always best if everything
happens the same for everybody.
Senator Simpson. Mr. Feuer.
Mr. Feuer. On yoiu* second question about ways in which to test
English, I go back to the question as to how this information is
going to be used. Senator. I am not aware of frankly any test of
English that I feel comfortable would be the criterion for citizen-
ship. I mean, you said it quite eloquently yovirself at the opening
that either we have questions that are so easy that almost anyone
can pass, and in some way they represent, you know, what seems
to be at least an intuitive notion of what basic English is, or they
become more difficult, in which case you have got a very significant
standard-setting issue about which I don't think there is really con-
sensus.
One of the problems here is that trying to Unk test performance
to some futiu"e criterion of activity is a tall order. People coming
into this country go into many lines of work, many types of edu-
cational experiences, and the kind of Hteracy that they are going
to need to function effectively varies tremendously. I say that as
the son of two naturalized citizens and as the husband of a third,
and we have got all kinds of literacies around my household. But
49
people are functioning in many different ways and I don't think
there is a single test that any one of them should have been subject
to as a basis for citizenship.
Senator Simpson. Well, I think one thing that would be helpful
is to gather together what provisions should perhaps be made in
a "standardized test" that might be submitted to the bipartisan
members of the House and Senate committees that have the over-
sight jurisdiction. Then we won't have these problems where people
write to us and say, you know, the three colors of the flag, what
has happened to America, versus somebody who writes to say, well,
you know, we are not talking about the Federal court system in the
district where they are from. We do have three branches of govern-
ment and we do have this.
It is difficult, and we don't want to be exclusive and do it through
the testing process. Dr. Feuer, you talk about validity, and you do,
too. Does a test measure what it is supposed to measure? We will
have to find what are the "fundamentals of U.S. history," the
things I suppose we learned in our day. Who was George Washing-
ton? Maybe they ask that. I don't know. Abraham Lincoln? Thomas
Jefferson? I think those are important things.
You state that all test items should be pretested to check to see
that they are working and to examine whether they are too easy
or too difficult and, that is going to be tough to design. Then, Dr.
Feuer, you state that the statutory language does not provide the
kind of specificity that testmakers would need to design appro-
priate instruments.
Do you have any suggestions for us about the t3T)e of statutory
language or additional guidance that should be provided? That can
lead us into curious avenues, too, and your thoughts on that,
please.
Mr. Green. Well, pretesting is easy enough. You have a testing
program ongoing and so you can at the same time ask them to take
a series of questions for some experimental test that you are trying
to produce. You might even say, if you are willing to do this, we
will give you a reduced fee for having taken the original test. That
sort of thing can be always worked out, but it is important to do
because you can never tell by just reading the question whether it
is really right. It may have some peculiar nuance that you didn't
expect because you can read English ever so much better than
these people can.
Mr. Feuer. I wish I had a specific phrase to suggest to you. I
would recommend some kind of language that emphasizes the im-
portance of these kinds of validation techniques and methods as a
basis for deciding on what kinds of tests to use. If we look around,
there are some very reputable tests that are used for specific pur-
poses that have high-stakes consequences. College admissions tests
of the type that you are very familiar with, I am sure, go through
very extensive statistical and psychological sort of pretesting and
validation, all in an effort to maintain the integrity of the whole
process so that people taking the test have some reasonable sense
that this is related to future performance.
The testing companies, the reputable ones that are involved in
this, devote a good amount of resources to making sure that that
connection is there, and even then it is controversial, but at least
50
that effort is made. Defining what kind of hteracy we really think
new citizens need in order to function when they acquire this citi-
zenship is worthy of some kind of public discussion, at least as
much as the discussion about educational standards for people who
are already here.
Senator Simpson. I think that is our goal. It is what we want out
of persons. We want a sufficient EngUsh ability to respond to peo-
ple in the community, to respond to emergencies within their fam-
ily, to respond to directives of teachers or law enforcement persons,
who can understand an election ballot and what it is, who can ask
directions and perhaps give directions, and I suppose have some
knowledge of the front page of a newspaper or a flyer. Those are
not too much to demand, but those are just sufficient English to be-
come a successful and productive American without being restric-
tive in any way.
Ted.
Senator Kennedy. A pretty good definition that Senator Simpson
gave there. You know, there is a sort of folklore up in my part of
the country about the story about an immigrant who took the test
and always missed it by one point. He could never get this question
right and the question was do you favor the overthrow of the Gov-
ernment by force or violence?
Senator Simpson. He couldn't figure out which.
Senator Kennedy. He couldn't figure out which, and he kept fail-
ing and after he missed it twice, he came up and asked me.
[Laughter.]
When you were talking about nuances about how people look at
it, you know, that was at least allegedly — it is a good story, wheth-
er it was true or not.
Senator Simpson. I am writing it down.
Senator Kennedy. How many repeat the test if they fail it? Do
you have any kind of awareness about those? Maybe it is better to
ask the INS.
Mr. Green. We are not the persons to ask, but I would imagine
it would be fairly common.
Senator Kennedy. The other point is we don't really do much fol-
io wup on people that get by the test on what happens to them; I
mean, whether there are those who take the test and pass it or get
certain grades in certain ways and find out where they are in
terms of their citizenship, and which ones have been effective and
which ones haven't been. I don't know whether that makes a good
deal of sense as we come on into this whole area or not. Maybe it
does, maybe it doesn't, but I think we try and do that in a lot of
different areas of public policy — postmarketing surveillance in pre-
scription drugs to try and get them on track early and then careful
reviews to find out, you know, which ones do and which ones don't,
and what the tests were for those kinds of things.
Maybe that is asking too much to try and do an evaluation of the
people that take the test and pass it and how they turn out. Maybe
that is too tough. I don't know whether you think you could formu-
late some kind of way of doing an evaluation of it or not.
Mr. Green. I think so. For a sample of persons, you could decide
what things you would really like to have happen a month or a
year down the road. A month is going to be easier than a year be-
51
cause it is hard to keep track of people, but again you have to
agree. It is going to be ahnost as difficult to agree on what criteria
you are going to require against which to validate the test as the
criteria for the inclusion of questions on the test. It is the same
general kind of a problem. It can be done. It is a research oper-
ation.
Senator Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Feuer. You would probably want to also include a sample
of people who failed the test, but who are granted admission any-
way, and follow their performance and then you would get a real
comparison of the extent to which the test is really predicting
something about these people. That is very hard to do.
Senator Kennedy. Well, one of the bottom lines, not for every-
one, but certainly one is whether they have moved on into being
productive citizens and not being a burden in the communities. I
mean, you know, you could probably get some criteria that are out
there.
Let me just ask you quickly, on the civics portion of the natu-
ralization process, it is supposed to measure the applicant's under-
standing and attachment to the U.S. Constitution. Do you have any
impressions about whether the current tests do that. Do they do it
well? Can you give us any kind of impressions?
Mr. Green. I have not seen any of the current tests.
Senator Kennedy. OK
Mr. Feuer. It is very impressionistic. When my wife took this
test in 1983, I remember coaching her a little bit and feeling grate-
ful that she was taking the test.
Senator Kennedy. Also, do you have any impressions about the
type of quality control the INS should exercise in formulating the
tests or exams to ensure that we are getting good quality? I mean,
do you have any guidance either for the Service or for the outside
groups that are going to be doing these tests? Do you have any sug-
gestions in terms of quality control, or do you want to think about
it and get back to us?
Mr. Green. Offliand, I don't understand why INS isn't doing it
itself, but I don't know any of the details. And to have two separate
testing organizations sounds awkward as well in terms of equal
treatment. There ought to be the same generic tests for everybody,
I should think.
Senator Kennedy. OK. I think we will get a chance to look at
that, probably, in the final analysis. Also, the question about how
you develop the test with the varied educational backgrounds; I
think you have commented on that earher. How has that best been
done from your own kind of experience? You have differing edu-
cational levels. How does that t^e into consideration the different
educational levels if the tests are standardized?
Mr. Green. Well, the main problem with the civics test is to
make sure that the language is not too complicated because you
don't want it to be also a test of English, and that is going to be
an important consideration. But I would think that otherwise, you
want to find experts who have done this sort of thing. It is not the
educational background that is the problem. It is the linguistic
backgrounds and to some extent the cultural background. Concepts
52
mean somewhat different things in other cultures and we have to
be careful about that.
Senator Kennedy. OK, thank you very much.
Senator Simpson. Ted, I was reminded of that story. Do you re-
member the guy out on the street, the man on the street program,
and he came up to this guy and he put the mike in his face and
he said, what person do you admire most Uving or dead? And he
said the living one. [Laughter.]
I don't know where that goes. Well, I thank you very much for
your testimony. It was very helpful to us.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much.
Senator SiMPSON. The final panel is Rosemary Jenks, the direc-
tor of policy analysis of the Center for Immigration Studies, and
Kathi Flynn, immigration supervisor of the International Institute
of Lowell, MA. We welcome both of you to the subcommittee.
Senator KENNEDY. Could I, Mr. Chairman, just add a word for
Kathi Flynn?
Senator Simpson. Yes, indeed, please.
Senator Kennedy. We have had a lot of experts here this morn-
ing and it has been, I have found, a very interesting and construc-
tive hearing. Kathi Flynn is one of those persons who has seen just
about every side of immigration policy. She has been out in the
field and has dealt with these issues in local communities and in
the State. She has been a resource in terms of national policy and
has been working in an institute that has been very much involved
in policy issues. So it has been a lifetime of work and we use her
as a resoiirce on some of these complex issues and I am delighted
to see her today and welcome her. I want to thank Rosemary
Jenks, as well, for being here, and a particular welcome for Kathi
Flynn.
Thank you.
Senator SiMPSON. Thank you so much. Thanks, Ted.
If you will please proceed, then, in the order of the witness list,
Rosemary Jenks, please.
PANEL CONSISTING OF ROSEMARY JENKS, DIRECTOR OF POL-
ICY ANALYSIS, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, WASH-
INGTON, DC; AND KATHI FLYNN, IMMIGRATION SUPER-
VISOR, INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LOWELL, LOWELL,
MA
STATEMENT OF ROSEMARY JENKS
Ms. Jenks. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy, I want to thank
you for the opportunity to be here before you to discuss an issue
that is central to our national identity, the bond that holds us unit-
ed as one people — U.S. citizenship.
U.S. citizenship is the most valuable and the most cherished
privilege our Nation can bestow upon an individual. It is a privi-
lege that is sought by milhons aroimd the world. It carries with it
the right to travel freely, to hold certain public offices, and to peti-
tion for the immigration of family members. Most importantly,
however, it carries with it the right and the responsibility to take
part in shaping and securing the future of this country by voting
for elected officials at all levels of government.
53
At issue here today is not simply whether one poUtical party or
another is seeking an electoral advantage or whether the require-
ments for naturalization are being circumvented or flouted, but
rather whether the meaning of U.S. citizenship is being com-
promised. Thanks to the work of the Subcommittee on National Se-
curity, International Affairs and Criminal Justice of the House
Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and the integrity of
a number of INS employees from across the Nation, the evidence
is clear.
Unfortunately, it presents a disturbing picture of changes to the
naturalization process, apparently driven by a White House moti-
vated by election year concerns that have far-reaching implications
and that will endure long after next month's balloting. These
changes set a troubling precedent for future administrations.
Democratic or Republican, and for future generations of Americans.
The documents show that an initial push by INS management to
expedite the naturalization process was overtaken by an election-
year drive by the White House to register as many new voters as
possible before November. The combination of these forces has re-
sulted in chaos and confusion in INS offices, a perception by INS
adjudicators that their job is to rubber-stamp applications as far as
possible, and a collapse of the integrity of the naturalization proc-
ess. I will try to briefly summarize the progression of the events
that led to the current situation.
During INS Commissioner Doris Meissner's confirmation hearing
in the fall of 1993, Ms. Meissner correctly described naturalization
as a process that is beneficial to immigrants, to America, and to
the INS. She indicated her intention to place a high priority on
naturalization. I think we would all agree that an efficient and
timely naturalization process is a laudable goal, provided it is done
in a thoughtful and responsible way. I do not doubt that that is ex-
actly what Commissioner Meissner had in mind. Somewhere along
the way, however, it appears that the plan was commandeered by
people whose only goals are speed and high numbers.
The INS expected applications for naturalization to surge in fis-
cal year 1995 as a result of a combination of factors, and so in April
1995 Commissioner Meissner contracted a management consulting
firm, PRC, to work with INS staff to overhaul the naturalization
process. The final report, "Results in 30 Days: Reeingineering the
Naturalization Process," issued in May 1995, suggests a, "radical
redesign," of naturalization. It recommends that INS develop
strong partnerships with service providers, community-based orga-
nizations and voluntary agencies which would involve "total shar-
ing of information, joint decisionmaking, and aggressive coloration
aimed at best meeting the needs of the applicant,".
It suggests the introduction of high-tech, fully automated and in-
tegrated systems to facilitate data entry and criminal background
checks, in addition to automatically triggering "pre-qualified invita-
tions to immigrants as they become legally eligible for citizenship."
It calls for a review of, "longstanding interpretations of eligibility
laws and regulations" in order to meet the demands of today's eligi-
ble customers. PRC's conclusion is that processing time from sub-
mission to approval can be reduced to same-day service for 80 per-
cent of naturalization applicants.
54
In June 1995, Commissioner Meissner asked that the naturaHza-
tion program be designated as a reinvention lab under the auspices
of Vice President Grore's National Performance Review. Ms.
Meissner wanted to establish the INS offices with the largest natu-
ralization backlogs as reinvention labs so that some of the PRC rec-
ommendations could be tested and the backlogs eliminated.
On August 31, 1995, the INS announced the Citizenship USA, or
CUSA, Program. Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami
and Chicago were designated as CUSA cities. Over the next few
months, new naturalization procedures were established in, and re-
sources, including personnel and equipment, were diverted from
other programs and other INS offices to the 5 CUSA cities. Two re-
programming requests were approved by Congress to provide addi-
tional funding.
During this period, the White House was becoming increasingly
interested in the naturalization process. The possibility of sending
personalized letters to new citizens from the President was dis-
cussed and abandoned, and memos were prepared at the request
of high-level White House political aides on voter registration ef-
forts in conjunction with the naturalization program.
In February 1996, an aide to Vice President Gore offered INS the
assistance of her office. That offer was accepted and at the request
of the President, aides to Vice President Gore Elaine Kamarck and
Doug Farbrother evidently became the liaisons between the INS
and the White House on naturalization. Mr. Farbrother ordered
INS offices to extend the hours during which they interviewed nat-
uralization applicants to include evenings and weekends, thus forc-
ing some offices to mandate overtime work by employees. He
toured all the CUSA sites with David Rosenberg, the consultant
who INS put in charge of CUSA, in order to determine if CUSA
was "moving fast enough.
Because he felt INS' hiring process was too slow, he pressured
Commissioner Meissner and Deputy Commissioner Chris Sale to
delegate full hiring authority to CUSA district directors to estab-
lish a "special security process" that would allow new hires to begin
working while their background checks were being done and to au-
thorize a 20-percent increase in CUSA funding to be used at the
discretion of the district directors.
There is clear evidence that INS resisted some of these moves.
Mr. Farbrother repeatedly tells Ms. Kamarck that there is too
much interference from INS headquarters. In one E-mail, he com-
plains about the interference and wonders, "am I going to have to
keep dragging the ball and chain toward the finish line." In fact,
the resistance from INS headquarters led Mr. Farbrother to rec-
ommend that he personally replace INS Deputy Commissioner Sale
so that he would be in a position to "do more faster."
But in the end, Mr. Farbrother got what he wanted from INS.
Even those things that were refused by INS headquarters, such as
the hiring of temp workers and the illegal use of volunteers, while
not officially sanctioned by INS, were done in the CUSA offices. In
a March 28 E-mail to Vice President Gore, Mr. Farbrother con-
firmed what many in Congress were beginning to suspect, namely
that the White House was being driven by the desire to naturalize
55
as many immigrants as possible before the election in order to give
President Clinton an electoral advantage.
The E-mail stated that Mr. Farbrother was still not confident
that INS was moving fast enough to, "produce 1 million new citi-
zens before election day." He concluded that "Unless we blast INS
headquarters loose from their grip on the front-line managers, we
are going to have way too many people still waiting for citizenship
in November. I can't make Doris Meissner delegate broad authority
to her field managers. Can you."
As a result of all this — and I am concluding right now; sorry —
the current naturalization process is far different from the one en-
visioned in our law. While the initial goals of Commissioner
Meissner's INS may have been laudable, it is clear now that expe-
diency won out over integrity. Preexisting problems were
compounded and the result was the granting of our Nation's most
prized benefit, citizenship, to criminals. The naturalization system
has been compromised not only in the eyes of INS employees who
now refer to it either as the Jiffy Lube program or Nats-R-Us, but
also in the eyes of Americans, native-bom and naturalized.
Thank you.
Senator Simpson. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jenks follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rosemary Jenks
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Rosemary Jenks, Director
of PoHcy Analysis at the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit, non-advocacy
research institution. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss
£in issue that is central to our national identity, the bond that holds us united as
one people: United States citizenship. United States citizenship is the most valuable
and the most cherished privilege our nation can bestow upon an individual. It is
a privilege that is sought by millions around the world. It carries with it the right
to travel freely, to hold certain public offices and to petition for the immigration of
family members. Most importantly, however, it carries with it the right, and the re-
sponsibility, to take part in shaping and securing the future of this country by vot-
ing for elected officials at all levels of government.
We have all seen media reports on the politicization of the naturalization process,
the "dumbing-down" of the requirements for naturalization, cheating by naturaliza-
tion applicants at outside testing entities, and criminals and other ineligible aliens
being granted U.S. citizenship. At issue here today is not simply whether one politi-
cal party or another is seeking an electoral advantage or whether the requirements
for naturalization are being circumvented or flouted, but rather whether the mean-
ing of United States citizenship is being compromised. If the media reports are accu-
rate, then our conclusion must be yes.
In order to determine the accuracy of the reports, we must examine the evidence.
Thanks to the work of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs
and Criminal Justice of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee
and the integrity of a number of INS employees from across the nation, this evi-
dence is available. Unfortunately, it presents a disturbing picture of changes to the
naturalization process, apparently motivated by election-year concerns, that have
far-reaching implications that will endure long after next month's balloting. These
changes set a troubling precedent for futvire administrations — Democratic or Repub-
lican — and for future generations of Americans.
Attached to this statement is a "Naturahzation Chronology," which I have pieced
together after reviewing thousands of pages of documents, including e-mail ex-
changes, from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the White House,
and the Office of the Vice President, and speaking with numerous INS employees
around the country. I use the chronology as a general guideline to examine the cur-
rent naturalization process and how it developed.
The requirements for natvu-gdization are set out in the Immigration and National-
ity Act. Among other things, applicants are required to submit an application form,
the N-400, a copy of their alien registration card, the "green card," fingerprints,
photographs and a fee of $95 to the INS. In general, they must prove that they are
56
at least 18 years of age; that they have resided in the United States as lawful per-
manent residents for a minimum of five years (unless they marry a U.S. citizen, in
which case it is three years); that they are able to read, write, speak and under-
stand English; that they have at least a minimal knowledge of U.S. history and gov-
ernment; that they are of good moral character; and that they do not have a serious
criminal record. Upon receiving the N— 400 and the accompanying paper work, INS
enters the information into an INS database and forwards the fingerprints to the
FBI for a criminal record check. INS is then required to wait for 60 days for a reply
fi-om the FBI. If the FBI finds a criminal record, or a "hit," the fingerprints are sent
back to the INS office along with a copy of the criminal record. If no criminal record
is found, the INS does not get a response from the FBI and can proceed with the
adjudication process after 60 days. INS examiners (or District Adjudications Offi-
cers, DAOs) then schedule an interview with the applicant, during which the appli-
cant is tested on English, history and government knowledge and asked questions
to determine good moral character. If all the requirements are met, the application
is approved and the applicant is scheduled for a swearing in ceremony. Otherwise,
the application is either denied or continued, depending on the nature of the prob-
lem.
TESTING FRAUD
In 1991, the government established criteria under which outside (i.e., non-gov-
ernment) testing entities (OTEs), including for-profit business, could be authorized
to administer standardized tests to determine a naturalization applicant's abiUty to
read and write in English, along with his or her knowledge of history and civics (see
attachment 2). The tests are comprised mainly of multiple choice questions, but ap-
plicants silso have to write two simple sentences that are dictated to them. To date,
the INS has authorized six OTEs to administer these tests: Educational Testing
Service (ETS), Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS), South-
east College, Naturalization Assistance Services (NAS), Marich Associates and
American College Testing (ACT). These OTEs in turn may license community based
organizations (CBOs) and other affiliates to administer the tests on their behalf, in
compliance with the requirements set out in the Federal Register notice. However,
neither INS, nor the individuals OTEs have an effective monitoring process to en-
sure that requirements relating to the security of the tests or the integrity of the
testing are met.
The first indications of trouble with the system came in 1992, when INS examin-
ers began to encounter naturalization applicants who presented test certificates (in-
dicating that they had passed the standardized tests) at their interviews, but were
unable to communicate in or understand English. ETS complained to INS Head-
auarters that some examiners were refusing to accept ETS test certificates as evi-
ence that applicants had passed the written/read English and history/civics test.
Headquarters sent a memo to the field offices forbidding examiners from retesting
applicants and directing them, instead, to question applicants (through an inter-
preter) on how they were able to pass the test.
In July 1994, NAS presented a proposal to INS to be authorized as an OTE (see
attachment 3). NAS lists how it meets each of the criteria in the Federal Register
notice, except that it details its experience in "Driver Improvement School" for the
first criterion, which requires a testing entity to "demonstrate experience in develop-
ing and administering reliable standard examination in the English language and
civics areas" [emphasis added]. NAS clearly does not have such experience, and so
should have been found ineligible. Nonetheless, NAS quickly established itself as
the leader of OTEs, setting up hundreds of testing sites across the nation. Half of
all naturalization applicants tested by OTEs use one of the 500 or so NAS affiliates.
The point of contact at INS Headquarters for "information on the citizenship test-
ing programs, including test site additions and deletions," in July 1994 was W.R.
"Skip" ToUifson, a Senior Immigration Examiner. Mr. Tollifson retired from the INS
on March 29, 1996 and began working for NAS on April 1, 19G6. He testified, under
oath, during a September 10, 1996 hearing of the House National Security, Inter-
national Affairs and Criminal Justice Subcommittee that he "did not, per se, ap-
prove this [NAS] application." and that he did not consider taking a job at NAS to
be an ethics violation. An Ethics Officer in the INS General Counsel Office, on the
other hand, wrote in an email exchanger
Employees have suggested to me that Tollifson approved NAS, a natu-
ralization testing entity even though they did not meet the Service's cri-
teria, failed to properly monitor NAS; he was overheard negotiating for em-
ployment and has now violated the post employment restriction laws * * *
(see Attachment 4).
57
Reports of testing fraud at affiliates of the OTEs began to increase dramatically
in late 1994. INS examiners came across increasing numbers of naturalization appli-
cants who, despite having an OTE test certificate, were unable to communicate in
or understand English. Some affiliates were charging as much as $850 to prepare
and test immigrants. Examples of documented fraud during the administration of
the tests include test proctors pointing to the correct answers on the answer sheet,
tests being given in the applicants' native language instead of English, and the sen-
tences being written on a blackboard so applicants simply have to copy them. Some
affiliates guaranteed that, as long as applicants could sign their names in English,
they would pass the test. Affiliates were using print media — often ethnic news-
papers — radio and television ads to advertise their services. Some ads included false
promises and/or blatant lies, but there were no regulations governing the content
of the ads. In October 1995, INS Headquarters instructed field offices that the "in-
ability [of an applicant with an OTE certificate] to speak English may not be the
sole reason" for determining that there was fraud in the testing.
Testing fraud was uncovered in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Il-
linois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas
and Virginia. In Tucson, AZ, an examiner emailed his supervisor asking how to han-
dle an applicant who failed his interview because of lack of knowledge of history
and government, and then returned two days later with a test certificate from ETS.
The supervisor responded, "Punt, what else. If his English was alright, we have one
more U.S. citizen" (see attachment 5).
The three most-publicized cases were in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Honolulu and Dal-
las. In November 1995, an investigative reporter from a St. Paul television station
took a hidden video camera into an NAS-affiliated testing site and recorded test
proctors drilling applicants on the test questions and answers prior to the test, ap-
plicants sharing answers, and the test proctors giving applicants the correct an-
swers during the test.
INS suspended NAS on November 22, after seeing the broadcast of this tape, and
gave NAS ten days to respond to the allegations of fraud or request a hearing before
Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications, Louis Crocetti. On December 5, NAS'
lawyers demanded that NAS be reinstated until a hearing could be held or they
woiild file a lawsuit in Federal Court. On December 13, INS and NAS signed a stip-
ulated settlement agreement under which NAS was reinstated with certain condi-
tions, including the permanent suspension of the St. Paul affiliate. NAS fiirther
agreed to comply with new criteria for quality control, as long as all OTEs would
have to do the same. INS agreed to apologize in writing for any trouble caused by
the suspension to NAS and all NAS affiliates in good standing (see attachment 6).
INS Headquarters also convened a working group to develop official guidelines for
INS investigations of testing fraud, as there appeared to be none in existence.
On January 22, 1996, following an investigation by the IHS Honolulu District Of-
fice, INS directed NAS to suspend an affiliate in Honolulu. The INS investigation
led to the arrest and criminal prosecution of four employees of the affiliate. No ac-
tion was taken against NAS following that incident, but in February, INS Head-
quarters officials discussed the possibility of designating a contact person to track
all testing entity violations, in case INS needed a record of them for litigation. Also
in February, INS documents indicate that the INS Office of Internal Audit was co-
operating with the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General (OIG) on an
OIG investigation of testing fraud.
In early 1996, a former NAS employee, Jewell Elghazali, contacted the investiga-
tive reporter who had uncovered the fraud in St. Paul and told him of additional
testing fraud. The reporter put her in touch with "20/20", which then began an un-
dercover investigation of an NAS affiliate in Dallas, TX. "20/20" took a hidden video
camera into the testing site and taped test proctors giving the applicants the ques-
tions and answers to the test prior to its administration, pointing to correct answers
on the answer sheets during the test, and speaking to the applicants in Spanish,
among other things. Ms. Elghazali told "20/20" that, while she was grading tests for
NAS, she came across entire batches of tests in the same handwriting and with the
same incorrect answers on every test.
In April 1996, INS Headquarters sent instructions to the field offices on proce-
dvu"es to follow to report and initiate investigations of complaints of testing fraud.
In May 1996, after it was notified of the "20/20" investigation, INS Headquarters
sent a memo to field offices with guidelines on conducting unannounced on-site in-
spections of testing sites. The guidelines require each District Office to visit one site
per quarter.
On June 10, 1996, "20/20" interviewed INS Executive Associate Commissioner T.
Alexander Aleinikoff regarding the tape from Dallas (see attachment 7). Mr.
Aleinikoff was unable to explain why NAS had been authorized as an OTE, in light
58
of its experience in driver's education. However, he assured "20/20" that simply
passing the standardized test does not mean an apphcant will be naturalized be-
cause he or she still has to demonstrate the ability to communicate in and under-
stand English at the INS interview. When asked whether it might be conflict of in-
terest that Mr. ToUifson works for NAS, Mr. AleinikofF stated numerous times that
there was an "on-going investigation" into Mr. ToUifson's activities. However, at-
tachment 4, dated three days after the interview, notes that Mr. Aleinikoff wanted
INS to "commence an investigation."
On June 28, 1996, INS issued NAS a "Notice of Intent to Suspend." On July 12,
INS Headquarters sent a memo to the field offices directing them to continue to ac-
cept NAS testing certificates. To my knowledge, no further action has been taken
against NAS to date.
The number of licensed affiliates of the six authorized OTEs grew from 309 in
May 1993 to over 1,000 by mid- 1996. Reported incidents of testing fi-aud also in-
creased dramatically. As of July 10, 1996, INS reported that about 25 percent
(250,000-300,000) of all naturalization applicants used the OTEs. Their overall pass
rate is 85 percent, although the pass rate for NAS is 93 percent.
"re-engineering" naturalization
Doris Meissner was sworn in as Commissioner of the INS in October 1993. During
her confirmation hearing, Mrs. Meissner correctly described naturalization as a
process that is beneficial to immigrants, to America and to the INS. She indicated
her "intention to be much more active on the part of the Service where naturaliza-
tion is concerned." I think we would all agree that an efficient and timely natu-
ralization process is a laudable goal, provided it is done in a thoughtful and respon-
sible way. I do not doubt that that is exactly what Commissioner Meissner had in
mind. Somewhere along the way, however, it appears that the plan was com-
mandeered by people whose only goals are speed and high numbers.
As noted in the attached chronology, about 270,000 N-400 applications were
pending (not including any that had been received, but not been entered into the
computer) when Commissioner Meissner took office. According to testimony before
the House National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice Subcommit-
tee, a 1994 General Accounting Office study found that about 80 percent of N-400s
were processed within four months during that year, although the wait was seven
to ten months in certain cities. The number of N-400 applications received in fiscal
year 1994 surpassed fiscal year 1993 receipts by only 21,487. In fiscal year 1995,
however, INS expected a much larger increase because of a combination of factors,
including the 2.7 million beneficiaries of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control
Act (IRCA) amnesty becoming eligible based on the five-years residence require-
ment, the passage of Proposition 187 in California in November 1994, and legisla-
tive proposEils to bar non-citizens ft-om certain means-tested welfare benefits.
Thus, an INS working group conducted a survey in June 1994 of ways to stream-
line the naturalization process. One of the proposals they came up with was to
waive the personal interview for a number of categories of applicants (see attach-
ment 8).
Naturalization was identified as a "major reinvention effort" in April 1995, accord-
ing to Associate Commissioner for Examinations, Louis Crocetti. That same month,
Commissioner Meissner contracted a management consulting firm, PRC, to work
with INS staff to overhaul the naturalization process. PRC and the INS staff con-
ducted a four-week review of the process and produced a "radical redesign" of natu-
ralization. The final report, issued in May 1995, is called Results in 30 Days: Re-
Engineering the Naturalization Process (see attachment 9). Among other things, it
recommends that INS develop strong partnerships with "Service Providers" — com-
munity-based organizations (CBOs) and voluntary agencies (VOLAGS) — which
would involve "total sharing of information, joint decision making, and aggressive
coloration aimed at best meeting the needs of the applicant." It recommends the in-
troduction of high tech, fiiUy automated and integrated systems to facilitate data
entry and criminal background checks, in addition to automatically triggering "pre-
qualified 'invitations' to immigrants as they become legally eligible for citizenship."
It adds that "long-standing interpretations of eligibility laws and regulations will be
reviewed to * * * [focus] upon meeting the demands of todaj^s eligible customers."
Finally, it concludes that processing time fi-om submission "to approval will be re-
duced to 'same day service' for 80 percent of the applicants."
In June 1995, Congress approved a reprogramming request fi-om INS to provide
additional funding for the naturalization initiative. On June 26, Commissioner
Meissner submitted a request that the naturaUzation program be designated as a
"Reinvention Lab" under the auspices of Vice President Gore's National Perform-
59
ance Review (NPR — see attachment 10). Her request letter and subsequent INS doc-
umentation make clear that the PRC report provided the basis for the "re-engineer-
ing" of the naturalization process that has occurred over the past year.
In the meantime, N-400 applications were on the rise and examiners were being
overwhelmed. District Offices lacked the equipment they needed to process N— 400s
efficiently. Many offices did not have access to the Naturalization Automated Case
System (NACS) database, and those that did were experiencing problems with it.
Many offices were (and, reportedly, are) still using electronic typewriters to process
applications.
On August 1-2, 1995, INS convened a "Key Cities Meeting" with representatives
from the Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York, San Diego and
San Francisco INS offices, where 80 percent of the INS' workload is concentrated.
Commissioner Meissner introduced these employees to the PRC re-engineering re-
port, explaining that because some "radical" changes would be included, a commu-
nications plan was being prepared to clarify the program.
During a senior-level naturalization staff meeting on August 2, it was decided
that the staff needed to follow up on the status of the Reinvention Lab designation
to pursue "facilities, contracting and procvu-ement issues that warrant immediate ex-
emption to creating policies, regulations, etc," (see attachment 11). It was also deter-
mined that a memo designating David Rosenberg as the Naturalization Re-Engi-
neering Project Coordinator needed to be drafted, and Mr. Rosenberg's contract ex-
tended.
Commissioner Meissner unveiled the "Citizenship USA" (CUSA) initiative on Au-
gust 31, 1995. The stated objective of CUSA, at least initially, was "to become cur-
rent" on N-400 applications, meaning that applications would be processed from
start to citizenship within six months by the end of fiscal year 1996. INS designated
five "CUSA cities," including Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami and
Chicago, which had the largest numbers of pending cases when the program started.
Resources, including personnel, equipment and building space, were to be funneled
into these five cities, which would serve as the "Reinvention Labs."
The naturalization initiative was approved as an NPR Reinvention Lab on Sep-
tember 5, 1995. On September 11, Commissioner Meissner forwarded to all field of-
fices the executive summary of the PRC report with a memo explaining its origin
and asking for comments (see attachment 12). She wrote that "wherever possible,
we will use vahdated re-engineering techniques as outlined in the PRC report to at-
tack the caseload." She added that the report offers "a basic road map for change."
On September 21, 1995, a manager with UNICOR, a Federal prison in Lexington,
KY, called the INS in Miami to offer the assistance of UNICOR inmates in prepar-
ing naturalization certificates. The INS employee who took the call emailed Head-
quarters and his supervisors in Miami to inform them of the offer. He noted that
there were two potential problem areas: 1) the certificates are prepared from NACS,
and "some people might not be comfortable with a direct data link to a federal pris-
on;" and 2) "would be the public relations aspect of having prisoners producing natu-
ralization certificates," especiaUy since some of UNICOR's "employees" are illegal
aliens. Nonetheless, the employee saw "nothing impossible about this situation," and
suggested that the INS consider it (see attachment 13).
Beginning in mid-October, INS Regional and District Directors were notified that
they would be reqviired to detail personnel — including Adjudications Officers, In-
spectors, Investigators, Boarder Patrol Agents, Special Agents, Asylum Officers and
clerical workers — to the CUSA offices. As might be expected, the effect on the offices
losing the workers was devastating. Offices were unable to perform crucial duties
such as employer sanctions enforcement, investigations targeting criminal aliens,
adjudications and airport inspections. The funneUng of resources into CUSA sites
also raised funding questions (see attachment 14).
An INS working group was convened in October 1995 to identify and solve the
on-going problems with NACS, but problems persisted well into 1996 (there is no
indication that they have been solved to date). FBI fingerprint and name checks also
presented problems. Fingerprint "hits" (indicating a criminal record) from the FBI
oflen were not placed in the application file until afler the application was approved
for naturalization. On November 16, 1995, INS staff discovered that "for the last
8-10 years [FBI responses on records checks] have been immediately burned,"
meaning that INS was "destroying the hits on 1/2 of our name checks (at a cost of
probably $1,000,000 per year) and naturalizing an assortment of scum" (see attach-
ment 15).
In January 1996, INS implemented a "Direct Mail" initiative in all the CUSA
cities except San Francisco. Under this system, N— 400s are mailed directly to one
of the four INS Service Centers (Vermont Service Center (VSC), Nebraska Service
Center (NSC), Texas Service Center (TSC) and California Service Center (CSC) in-
60
stead of being submitted to District Offices. The Service Centers are supposed to
enter the appUcation data into NACS and pull the fingerprint cards and submit
them daily to the FBI. When the fingerprint cards have been submitted, Service
Center staff are to enter an "X" in the appropriate place in the NACS record, which
should automatically start the clock for the 60-day waiting period. When 60 days
have passed, the record should automatically come up on the District Office com-
puter as being ready for an interview to be scheduled. If the FBI has made a hit,
the fingerprints and criminal record are sent to the Service Center, which is sup-
posed to report daily to the District Office on any hits so that interviews will not
be scheduled until the hard copy of the criminal record has been forwarded to the
District Office.
The implementation of the Direct Mail initiative resulted in almost immediate
chaos. Neither Service Center staff" nor District Offices fiilly understood the new
procedures. The Service Centers were not filling in the "X" so the 60-day clock was
not being started. Because the system is automated, the computers in the District
Offices will not bring up the records for interview scheduling until the 60-day clock
is initiated and terminates. Thus, the problem was noticed when District Office com-
puters showed no applicants who were ready to be interviewed, even though an esti-
mated 84,000 were in the system. INS' answer to the problem was to run a system-
wide sweep to bypass the 60-day waiting period on all N— 400 applications entered
into the system by the Service Centers on or after February 2, 1996. The sweep was
"deemed to be within acceptable process integrity standards" and was "designated
a priority by Programs and Field Operations as the four subject sites are nearing
a crisis situation regarding eligible cases to be scheduled for interview" (see attach-
ment 16).
Thus, by February 1996, the INS was in a state of utter chaos because of a pro-
gram that began officially only about four months before. INS offices around the
country were being overwhelmed by the increase in N-400 applications — the largest
group of aliens amnestied in 1986 had met the five-year residence requirement by
December 1995. CUSA offices, in addition to being inundated with backlogged and
new cases, were attempting to adopt the new "re-engineered" and streamlined adju-
dication process, thus compounding the confusion. Non-CUSA offices had been
forced to detail some portion of their resources, mainly personnel, to the CUSA of-
fices, so they, too, were falling behind. As noted in the attached chronology, the
number of N--400 applications pending on October 1, 1995 surpassed 800,000, and
new applications were being received in record numbers.
PRESSURE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
Until early 1996, the push to "re-engineer" the naturalization process and speed
up the adjudication of cases appeared to be coming from within INS management.
Beginning in March 1996, however, there is no question that the overriding impetus
began coming directly from the White House. In fact, the documents show that INS
Headquarters actually tried to slow the naturalization juggernaut — at least partly
for political appearances — but was overruled by higher powers.
The first indication of White House interest in the naturalization initiative was
in September 1994, when Daniel Solis, then President and Executive Director of the
United Neighborhood Organization of Chicago (UNO), met President Clinton at a
Democratic fundraiser in Chicago. Mr. SoUs explained to the President that the
growing number of immigrants eligible for naturalization represented a "great op-
portunity" to get a million new voters, but "we have to get all these citizens natural-
ized." The President told Mr. Solis to contact senior White House political aides
Harold Ickes and Rahm Emanuel. On October 27, 1994, Mr. Solis sent President
Clinton a letter detailing what needed to be done to speed up naturalization. The
letter was a foUowup to a dinner meeting between the President, Mr. Solis and oth-
ers (see attachment 17).
In July 1995, Lee Ann Inadomi, Office of Cabinet Affairs, responded to a request
by INS Executive Associate Commissioner Robert Bach for information on the possi-
bihty of President Clinton writing personalized letters to newly naturalized citizens.
Ms. Inadomi pointed out that there were practical (e.g., investment of resources, 30
percent of N--400 applicants are not on NACS), legal (e.g., it could violate the Pri-
vacy Act) and political (i.e., it could be sent as campaign politics) problems. Less
than a week later, the White House requested information from INS on how such
person£dized letters might be provided (see attachment 18).
Apparently that idea was abandoned because, as of August 1995, INS District Di-
rectors were being reminded to provide the standard presidential congratulatory let-
ter. The memo to the field notes that the White House "has estabUshed [provision
of the letter] as a priority." Emails from late September 1995 indicate that INS of-
61
fices were running short on the letters and there was some degree of panic among
INS st£iff who noted that "the White House is rather insistent" that the letter be
provided (see attachment 19).
On September 28, 1995, Mr. Solis sent a letter to First Lady Hillary Clinton to
follow up on a recent conversation on the political potential for naturalization
streamlining. He noted that INS officials approached IJNO with the opportunity to
participate in a backlog reduction pilot program that also "may provide the Demo-
crats with a strategic advantage at next year's Convention." His purpose was to es-
tablish "support for the proposed pilot program in order to overcome the politics of
its implementation" (see attachment 20).
Also in September 1995, a memo was prepared for White House aide Harold Ickes
to update him on the nattu-alization initiative and assure him that CUSA will in-
clude voter registration efforts. The memo concludes that while "the INS effort at
voter registration," along with the efforts of others, is resulting in registration of
new citizens, "pace of naturalization will limit the niunber of new voters." A follow
up memo was sent to Mr. Ickes in March 1996 with a more positive outlook on the
CUSA voter registration drive (see attachment 21).
In January 1996, Congress approved a second INS reprogramming request for the
naturalization program, bring the total reprogramming funds to about $80 million.
The following month, Mr. Rosenberg notified the White House that "INS is hiring
more than 850 additional staff to process appUcations," although in fact, his inten-
tion was to hire more than 900 temporary workers (attachment 22). He requested
assistance from the Vice President's Office in acquiring personnel, ceremony space
and funding for CUSA (see attachment 23).
Doug Farbrother from Vice President Gore's NPR office responded zealously to
Mr. Rosenberg's request. Mr. Farbrother immediately began looking into extending
INS office hours so that they could conduct naturalization interviews on evenings
and weekends. He noted INS' concern that the General Services Administration
(GSA) might object to providing guards and utilities for extended hours, but indi-
cated his attention to go forward. Ten days later, INS CUSA Offices were notified
that they would be extending their hours on evenings and weekends (see attach-
ment 24).
Mr. Farbrother also decided that the INS hiring process was too slow. He saw no
need for INS to wait for complete background checks on new hires before bringing
them on board. He felt that INS could fingerprint new hires and put them to work
while the background checks were being done. The Department of Justice had de-
nied an earlier request from the INS Headquarters Security office to do 'lesser
scope" background investigations for CUSA temporary workers, but ten days after
Mr. Farbrother considered the issue, INS Deputy Commissioner Chris Sale in-
structed CUSA offices to "do limited clearances * * * (fingerprint check, and drug
testing, only). The remaining process will be done while on-duty." The result was
that some of the CUSA workers who were hired, and already on-duty, were found
to have security problems, but could not be terminated until the full 120-day back-
ground investigation had been completed. Moreover, INS Security ran out of funding
to do background checks on employees who had already been hired and were work-
ing (see attachment 25).
In early March 1995, INS Headquarters staff forwarded via email a message from
Commissioner Meissner regarding a promise she had made to White House aide
Rahm Emanuel to provide an update and subsequent newsletters on CUSA progress
to Attorney General Reno, Chief of StzifF Panetta, Vice President Gore, HUD Sec-
retary Cisneros and other key White House aides (see attachment 26).
Following a meeting with Commissioner Meissner in mid-March, Mr. Farbrother
faxed a memo to Deputy Commissioner Sale explaining that he needed either Ms.
Sale or Commissioner Meissner to delegate more authority to the District Directors
in the CUSA cities in order to "get the results the Vice President wants." Mr.
Farbrother included a draft memo (later edited), for Commissioner Meissner's signa-
ture, delegating to the District Directors her "authority to waive INS rules and reg-
ulations." INS Counsel clearly questioned the legality of such a delegation of author-
ity (see attachment 27).
In the meantime, Mr. Farbrother was accompanying Mr. Rosenberg on a tour of
all the CUSA cities to examine the effectiveness of the initiative and determine
what additional resources they might need. The purpose of the trip "was to answer
the question: Is CUSA moving fast enough, given the delays caused by budget and
fiirloughs?" Mr. Farbrother and Ms. Elaine Karmarck, Office of the Vice President,
were becoming increasingly annoyed with delays in INS Headquarters. They wanted
Deputy Commissioner Sale to sign the delegation of authority letter so they could
speed up the hiring process in the CUSA cities. On March 21, 1995, Ms. Kamarck
notified Mr. Farbrother via email that "the President is sick of this and wants ac-
41-503 97-3
62
tion. If nothing moves today we'll have to take some pretty drastic measures." Mr.
Farbrother responded that he was meeting with Deputy Attorney General Jamie
Gorelick and Deputy Commissioner Sale in two days. He stated that if they didn't
cooperate with him, he wovdd "call for heavy artillery."
Mr. Farbrother briefed Vice President Gore in emial following that meeting and
reported that Deputy Attorney General Gorelick had told Ms. Kamarck that INS
would "deliver by Tuesday." In fact, she delivered on Monday. Deputy Commissioner
Sale signed a memo to CUSA District Directors announcing a 20 percent funding
increase, delegation of fiill authority over funding and hiring, and expedited drug
testing procedures and a "special security process" for new hires. Followdng this de-
cision, INS Headquarters increased the CUSA "production goals" by almost 40 per-
cent. Again, Mr. Farbrother briefed Vice President Gk>re via email on the delegation
of hiring and funding authority. He noted, however, that the CUSA Directors still
do not 'Tiave enough freedom to do the job" (see attachment 28).
The follovdng day, Mr. Farbrother emailed Vice President Gore about a bet he
had made with Ms. Kamarck that "INS headquarters would not give their managers
in" the CUSA cities "enough authority, in general, to make me confident they could
produce a million new citizens before election day" [emphasis added]. He concluded
that "unless we blast INS headquarters loose from their grip on the frontline man-
agers, we are going to have way too many people still waiting for citizenship in No-
vember. I can't make Doris Meissner delegate broad authority to her field managers.
Can you?" (see attachment 29).
A couple of days later, Mr. Fau-brother emailed Ms. Kamarck with his ideas on
1) blunting "any charge that we are running a citizenship/Clinton voter mill," and
2) how to avoid the appearance that he is "working against Doris [Meissner"] (he
suggests that he take over Deputy Conunissioner Sale's job and that Ms. Sale could
work at NPR-see attachment 30).
During the same period, Mr. Farbrother began asking other Federal agencies to
find personnel — particularly those who had been RIFed or furloughed — and re-
sources that could be diverted to CUSA. On April 1, he reported to Ms. Kamarck
that he had made some progress in getting help from other agencies in Los Angeles
and San Francisco, but he complained that "they are still getting way too much in-
terference from headquarters. Am I going to have to keep dragging that ball and
chain toward the finish line?" (see attachment 31).
In early April, Mr. Farbrother drafted a memo for President Clinton on "Improv-
ing Service for Citizenship Applicants." The first draft again suggested that an NPR
employee replace Deputy Commissioner Sale so that "our reinventor would have
more direct influence and the INS staff would be less likely to go public with com-
plaints than they would over the interference of an outsider." The second draft, sent
via emial to Ms. Kamarck on April 10, included a section called "Lower the stand-
ards for citizenship," which discussed, among other things, the re-education of the
older adjudicators "to be more liberal." These two drafts were produced by Vice
President Gore's office, indicating that they may not have made their way to the
President. The third draft, however, was produced by the White House. Hand-
written on the top of the first page is: "Monday am brief of CisnerosATP/Pres." (see
attachment 32).
Ms. Kamarck prepared a memo to the Vice President on April 4 to brief him on
INS progress prior to a lunch with the President. The memo begins, "As you know,
following on the assignment from the President to look into the citizenship backlog,
I sent Doug Farbrother on the road to each of the offices where the backlog was
most severe." There appears to be no question, in light of this memo, that it was
the President who provided the impetus for Mr. Farbrother's frenetic involvement
in the naturalization program beginning in early 1996, even though he reports to
the Vice President (see attachment 33).
An April 24, 1996 letter from the Southern California I.A.F. (Industrial Areas
Foundation) Network shows that Ms. Kamarck was also instrumental in "re-engi-
neering" the naturalization process, at least in Los Angeles. The letter states that
"nationally some 800,000 [immigrants] will become citizens in time for the election"
(see attachment 34).
"re-engineering" or "nats-r-us"?
On May 1, 1996, INS Associate Commissioner for Examinations Louis Crocetti an-
nounced in a memo to all field offices that the "new ideas and innovative proce-
dures" that were tested at CUSA sites with "remarkable results," were to be ex-
panded Servicewide to all offices. The memo stated that "most of the action items
can be implemented immediately. Others that have long-term effects may take
longer to implement." Attached to the memo was an explanation of "Naturalization
63
Process Streamlining Initiatives." According to the implementation dates on the
Summary Chart, all the new initiatives should be effect now (Oct. 1996 — see attach-
ment 35).
There is much of interest in this report, particularly in light of the fact that the
American people, to say nothing of our elected representatives, were totally unaware
that the naturalization process and requirements were being radically revised. Of
special interest to this discussion, however, is the fact that page two of the "AppUca-
tion" section says that "the revised Form N-400 will * * * include data collection
for voter registration."
As the nationwide expansion of these "Streamlining Initiatives" is predicated on
the "remarkable results" of the pilots in the CUSA cities, a brief look at those result
is warranted.
PERSONNEL
Temporary workers comprised most of the additional personnel for CUSA. Some
900 temporary adjudicators and clerical workers were hired by INS to accomplish
the goal of naturalizing over a million people in fiscal year 1996. As of June 1996,
the Inspector General was investigating the training standards for these temporary
workers, along with those workers who were detailed from other agencies or offices.
Volunteer workers were also utilized by many district offices. These volunteers in-
cluded members of CBOs, family members of INS employees, and, in at least one
case, legal permanent residents. These volunteers performed clerical duties, includ-
ing filing, mailed naturalization certificates, and collected Alien Registration Cards
and distributed naturalization certificates at citizenship ceremonies, among other
things. Attorney General Reno directed her staff to find out "what INS is doing to
use volunteers" in the naturalization program. President Clinton and/or Vice Presi-
dent Gore asked HUD Secretary Cisneros "whether qualified volunteers could be
generated to assist the INS in naturalization activities." Secretary Cisneros an-
swered affirmatively by providing a proposal from the Southern California Indus-
trial Areas Foundation Network's Active Citizenship Campaign. Apparently none of
these people was aware that it is a violation of Federal law for a government agency
to use volunteers to perform duties that are normally performed by agency person-
nel, as it constitutes an unauthorized augmentation of the agency appropriation.
This was pointed out in a memo from INS Headquarters Counsel to Regional Direc-
tor (see attachment 36). However, as of this weekend, INS employees with whom
I spoke say that volunteers continue to be used.
FBI FINGERPRINT CHECKS
A February 1994 report from the Inspector General found that 5.4 percent of
aliens submitting applications for benefits had an arrest record. The top reasons for
arrest were immigration violations/deportation proceedings (32 percent), assault^bat-
tery/rape (19 percent), theft/robbery/burglary (18 percent) and drug possession/dis-
tribution (10 percent). Rather than investing some of the CUSA funding in elec-
tronic fingerprint scanners, which can provide a hit almost instantly, the "stream-
lined" naturalization process requires fingerprint cards to be mailed to the FBI on
a daily basis. On March 29, 1996, however, the FBI did a sampling of receipts from
20 INS offices. Over 60 percent of the fingerprint cards received from Los Angeles
had been at the Los Angeles office for more than 30 days before they were submit-
ted. For the Ne^v York City office, 90 percent had been at the office for more than
30 days. As an INS employee wrote in an email on the subject: "It would seem the
problem is not the FBI, and they know it."
In June 1996, the Vermont Service Center (VSC) sent a shipment of fingerprint
cards that should have gone to the FBI to the New York City office, instead. Al-
though District Offices are supposed to be notified daily of FBI hits, several boxes
of positive hits sat around at the VSC for some time before being mailed to New
York City.
As of June 20, 1996, NACS had ongoing problems relating to the fingerprint
checks and another sweep of the system to start the 60-day clock was being ordered.
Despite the variety of problems with fingerprint checks, a Headquarters meeting re-
port noted that Adjudicators were only waiting 45 days (instead of 60) for FBI hits
(see attachment 37).
E-mail from July 17, 1996 notes that some fingerprint cards are being routed for
filing before even being sent to the FBI, while "positive hit" Usts from the Nebraska
Service Center are arriving at District Offices after the interviews have been sched-
uled.
64
"OPERATION JIFFY LUBE"
A number of INS employees testified, under oath, before the Subcommittee on Na-
tional Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice of the House Government
Reform and Oversight Committee on September 24, 1996. They testified that Adju-
dications Officers feel pressured by their supervisors to "approve, approve, approve;"
that good moral character standards are being ignored; that representatives of
CBOs complain to supervisors about adjudicators who continue or deny applications,
and that sometimes those adjudicators are removed from their duties; that adjudica-
tors who go on outreach interviews have to provide copies of their tally sheets
(showing approvals, denials and continueds) to the CBO representatives; that adju-
dicators have been told by their supervisors that the are not IRS agents and so
shouldn't concern themselves with possible tax fraud even though that would violate
good moral character. These employees pointed out that, while the simple fact than
an applicant has a criminal record does not automatically make him or her ineli-
gible for natiiralization, the fact that he or she lied on the application does. Lying
on the application is inconsistent with good moral character and so should maike an
applicant ineUgible for citizenship for five years.
Each of these INS employees came forward knowing that he or she was risking
his or her job or other forms of retaliation against whistle-blowers. A popular slogan
among INS employees is "no good deed goes unpunished." When asked why they
came forward, their answers included: "Because I know there is right and wrong;"
"We are sworn to uphold the law;" and "Out of a sense of responsibility." These peo-
ple, and the thousands of other INS employees like them, are the true heroes of
INS. They should be rewarded for their honesty and their integrity, but instead,
they are afraid for their jobs.
Following the House hearing, a letter was sent to the Washington Times by the
Dallas District Director, who referred to one of these employees as a "disgruntled
employee" with a "personal agenda." He was referring to Neil Jacobs, the Assistant
District Director for Investigations in Dallas, who testified that, of approximately
25,000 applications for citizenship that were processed recently in Dallas, not a sin-
gle referral was made to the Investigations unit to investigate a fingerprint hit, good
moral character, application fraud or testing fraud.
What the District Director failed to mention about Mr. Jacobs in his letter is that
this "disgruntled employee" was, ironically, awarded the 1995 Hammer Award for
Reinventing Government by Vice President Gore for creating the much-touted "Op-
eration Jobs" initiative. (For the record, Mr. Jacobs also has been presented with
the 1995 Ford Foundation Award for Innovations in American Government, an INS
award for Bravery Above and Beyond the Call of Duty in 1983, INS Outstanding
Performance Ratings every year from 1981 through 1992 and 1994 and 1995, and
INS Special Achievement Awards in 1975, 1976, 1978, 1985 and 1994.)
The naturalization process, as it now stands, is far different from the one envi-
sioned in our law. While the initial goals of Commissioner Meissner's INS may have
been laudable, it is clear now that expediency won out over integrity. Had the new
system's designers been committed to efficiency and integrity, different choices
would have been made. Instead of approaching naturalization streamlining in a
thoughtful and responsible way, changes were made haphazardly with only an eye
toward increasing the numbers of successful appUcations. For example, the 60-day
waiting period for the fingerprint checks could have been eUminated entirely, and
the process made less labor intensive, had some of the CUSA funding been used to
install electronic fingerprint devices in INS offices. Instead, the pre-existing prob-
lems were compounded and the result was the granting of our nation's most prized
benefit, citizenship, to criminals. The naturalization system has been compromised,
not only in the eyes of INS employees who now refer to it either as the "Jifly Lube
Program" or "Nats-R-Us." but also in the eyes of Americans — native bom and natu-
ralized. The forces behind these changes have done an egregious disservice to their
country.
65
/.
Naturalization Chronology
Prepared by the Center for Immigration Studies
FY 1990: N-400 appUcations pending at start of FY: 172,601
N-400 applications received: 233,843
FY 1991: N-400 appUcations pending at sUrt of FY: 213,843
N-400 applications received: 206,668
July 1991: -Final rule on requirements for English Language, American History and Civics,
Standardized Naturalization Testing by outside entities is published in the Federal
Register.
FY 1992: N-400 appUcations pending at start of FY: 115,181
N-400 appUcations received: 342,238
Oct. 1991: -INS authorizes Educational Testing Service (ETS) to administer standardized tests.
FY 1993: N-400 appUcations pending at start of FY: 199,358
N-400 appUcations received: 521,866
Nov. 1992: -INS authorizes Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS) to
administer standardized tests.
May 1993: -Skip ToUifson, Senior Immigration Examiner, Headquarters, Adjudications, is listed as
the national contact for information on test sites, including "site additions and
deletions."
July 1993: -INS authorizes Southeast College to administer standardized tests.
FY 1994: N-400 appUcations pending at start of FY: 269,192
N-400 appUcations received: 543,353
-The first aUens legaUzed under the 1986 IRCA amnesty become eUgible for
naturalization this FY.
-Debate over CaUfornia's Proposition 187 heats up toward the end of this FY.
Oct. 1993: -Doris Meissner is sworn in as INS Commissioner; at her confirmation hearing she
states that she intends for the INS to be "much more active... where naturalization is
conccmed."
June 1994: -An INS naturalization woiic group conducts a survey on ways to streamline the
naturalization process.
July 1994: -Naturalization Assistance Services (NAS) submits proposal for authorization to
administer standardized tests.
Aug. 1994: -INS authorizes NAS to administer standardized tests.
-Skip ToUifstn is still national point of contact.
Sept 1994: -Daniel Solis, President and Executive Director of the United Neighborhood
Organization of Chicago G^NO), meete President Clinton at a Democratic fundraiser in
Chicago and discusses naturalization as a way to increase the number of Democratic
voters.
66
/.
FY 1995: N-400 applications pending at start of FY: 314,236
N-400 applications received: 1,056,981*
-Legislative welfare reform proposals examine cutting benefits to non-citizens.
Oct. 1994: -INS authorizes Marich Associates to administer standardizes tests.
-An Immigration Intelligence Officer finds evidence of testing fraud by an ETS affiliate
in Ranch Cordova, CA.
Nov. 1994: -California's Proposition 187 passes by a wide majority and is then blocked by the
court.
Dec. 1994: -INS Executive Associate Commissioner Robert Bach distributes to field offices a
memo soliciting comments on a proposal originating from the June 1994 streamlining
survey to waive personal naturalization interviews for selected categories of aliens.
-An investigation into an ETS testing site in Fort Lauderdale, PL is initiated following
allegations of fraud.
Jan. 1995: -INS Headquarters begins work on a reprogramming request for naturalization.
April 1995: -Naturalization is identified as a "major reinvention effort."
-INS contracts with a management consulting firm, PRC, to work with a team of 20
INS staff to "re-engineer" the naturalization process.
-INS submits its naturalization reprogramming request to the Appropriations Committees
in Congress.
-INS examiners find evidence of testing fraud by NAS and Marich affiliates in Texas.
May 1995: -INS and PRC produce the results of their four-week study in a publication called
Results in 30 Days: Re-Engineering the Naturalization Process.
-Evidence of testing fraud by a Marich affiliate in Amarillo, TX is discovered.
June 1995: -Congress approves naturalization reprogramming request.
-INS examiners in Dallas, TX document a pattern of testing fraud by NAS and Marich
affiliates and ask that INS Headquarters, which has by this time been informed of the
problem, take action against Marich. *
-Commissioner Meissner requests that naturalization be designated as a formal
Reinvention Lab by Vice President Gore's National Performance Review (NPR).
July 1995: -The Office of Cabinet Affairs at the White House informs INS Executive Associate
Commissioner Robert Bach, in answer to his inquiry, that there are a number of
potential legal problems with the President writing personalized letters to all newly-
naturalized citizens.
-A local Sheriffs Office reports to INS that testing fraud is being committed by a
Marich affiliate based in Liberal, KS and testing in Perryton, TX.
-ETS suspends an affihate in Philadelphia, PA.
-INS finds evidence of testing fraud by an NAS affiliate in Ohio.
Aug. 1 995: -Associate Commissioner for Examinations Louis Crocetti notifies District Directors that
the White House has established distribution of the President's Congratulations letter to
all newly-naturalized citizens as a "priority."
-INS begins work on a second naturalization reprogramming request
* Untfl July 1995, INS daU on N-400 indnded only those appUcationi logged Into INS daubases as of the specified
date. Beginning in Jnly 1995, INS began Incloding aU applications received, Inclnding those not entered Into the
databases.
67
-David Rosenberg is to be the Naturalization Re-Engineering Project Coordinator.
-"Citizenship USA" (CUSA) is unveiled; to be focussed on the five cities with the
largest numbers of pending N-400s: Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Chicago
and Miami.
Sept 1995: -Daniel Solis of UNO sends a letter to First Lady Hillary Clinton to explain the
potential of naturalization to produce new Democratic voters.
-Naturalization is approved as an NPR Reinvention Lab; Mr. Rosenberg is the point of
contact.
-Commissioner Meissner sends the Executive Summary of the PRB re-engineering
report to field offices for comment
FY 1996: N-400 applications pending at start of FY: 705,712 + 96,774 unentered
N-400 applications received: 1,160,000
Oct 1995: -INS convenes a working group to identify and solve the problems with the
Naturalization Automated Case System (NACS - the naturalization database).
-INS authorizes American College Testing (ACT) to administer standardized tests.
-INS instructs field offices that the "inability [of a naturalization applicant with a test
certification fix)m an outside entity] to speak English may not be die sole reason" for
determining that there was fraud in the testing.
-NAS suspends an affiliate in Sacramento, CA.
Nov. 1995: -INS submits second naturalization reprogramming request to Appropriations
Committees in Congress.
-Testing fraud is discovered at an NAS affiliate in Minneapolis-St Paul, MN.
-Testing fraud is discovered at an unlicensed testing center in Philadelphia, PA.
-Dallas INS office submits recommendations to reduce fraud by testing entities.
-NAS suspends an affiliate in Richardson, TX for improperly conducting tests in
Boston, MA and Denver, CO.
-Afrer seeing a television broadcast documenting testing fraud at the NAS affiliate in
St Paul, INS suspends NAS.
Dec. 1995: -NAS lawyers threaten to file federal suit unless INS reinstates NAS.
-INS and NAS sign a stipulated settlement agreement and NAS is reinstated.
-At Executive Associate Commissioner AleinikofPs request, INS Headquarters convenes
working group to establish guidelines for investigating testing entities.
Jan. 1996: -Congress approves second reprogramming request.
-Marich suspends an affiliate in Bronx, NY.
-An investigation initiated by an INS District Office results in the arrest and prosecution
for testing fraud of four people at an NAS affiliate in Honolulu, HI.
-INS instructs NAS to suspend the Honolulu affiliate.
Feb. 1996: -"Direct Mail" of N-400s to Service Centers for all CUSA cities begins.
-Mr. Rosenberg requests help from Vice President Gore's Office in acquiring additional
personnel, ceremony space and funding for CUSA.
-Doug Farbrother from Vice President Gore's office, along with other NPR staff,
become increasingly involved in CUSA.
-The New York Immigrant Coalition sends recommendations to INS on how to lessen
fraud by testing entities.
-INS Headquarters discusses designating a contact person to track testing entity
violations so that INS will have a record of them in case of litigation.
68
-INS Office of Internal Audit is cooperating with the DOJ Office of Inspector General
(OIG) on an investigation into testing fraud.
-Testing fraud is suspected in Tucson, AZ, but the examiner is told to approve
naturalization anyway.
•Marich suspends an affiliate in Queens, NY and fraud is suspected at another affiliate
in Brooklyn.
-INS recommends that testing entities be allowed to publish a list of 1 SO test questions
as a study guide for applicants.
March 1996: -Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Farbrother, along with other INS and NPR staff, begin visiting
CUSA cities as part of a two-week review of CUSA's effectiveness.
-Mr. Farbrother emails himself a reminder to talk to INS and DOJ security about
speeding up hiring by bringing on new hires while their background checks are being
done, instead of waiting for them to be finished.
-INS Regional Offices are notified of a ""White House' initiative to further enhance and
accelerate" naturalization by, among other things, keeping CUSA offices open for
extended hours and on weekends.
-Mr. Farbrother asks INS Deputy Commissioner Chris Sale (or Commissioner Meissner)
to delegate full authority to District Directors to "waive INS rules and regulations" in
order to speed up naturalization.
-Deputy Commissioner Sale aimounces that staffing for CUSA would be increased by
20 percent, and delegates full authority over the funds and hiring to District Directors
in CUSA cities.
-Following the armouncement of a 20 percent increase in CUSA staff, INS Headquarters
increases the "production goals" for the CUSA cities by almost 40 percent (from
588,313 to 814,255 N-400 completions).
-INS Headquarters staff pass on via email a message from Commissioner Meissner
regarding a promise she made to Rahm Emanuel, Assistant to the President, to provide
periodic updates on the progress of CUSA to Emanuel, Attorney General Reno, Chief
of Staff Leon Panetta, Vice President Gore and others in the White House.
-White House aide Harold Ickes receives a memo assuring him that the author has
"reviewed the process of voter registration in naturalization ceremonies" and "in every
instance in which a new citizen is sworn in, the new citizen receives a packet from
I.N.S. which includes a voter registration mail in card."
-Mr. Farbrother complains to one of the Vice President's staff that some CUSA offices
are "still getting way too much interference from headquarters" with regard to getting
adequate staffing.
April 1996: -NAS cancels affiliates in New Yoiic, NY, Brooklyn, NY, Houston, TX and San Bruno,
CA.
-INS sends a memo to field offices detailing guidelines on investigating testing fi^ud.
-INS Headquarters is notified that the television program "20/20" is investigating NAS
testing fi^ud.
May 1996: -Mr. Crocetti notifies District Directors that the streamlined naturalization process is to
expanded fix)m the CUSA cities to all offices, effectively immediately (unless
regulations still need to be developed).
-Marich terminates a Staten Island, NY testing cite.
-Executive Associate Commissioners Aleinikoff and Slattery send field offices
guidelines on conducting unannounced on-site inspections of testing facilities.
69
June 1996: —'10110" interviews Mr. AleinikofT about naturalization and testing fraud.
-INS sends a letter to the testing entities advising them that District Offices may
conduct unannounced on-site inspections, and laying out what they will be looking for.
-An email from a Headquarters Ethics Officer indicates that Mr. Aleinikoff wants Skip
Tollifson's actions investigated, by the officer is unsure whether INS or DOJ-OIG
should "commence" the investigation.
-INS is investigating two testing sites in San Francisco.
-NAS cancels its contract with the affiliate in Dallas, TX that was featured in the
"20/20" story.
-INS issues NAS a Notice of Intent to Suspend.
-INS Headquarters Counsel issues a memo instructing Executive Associate
Commissioner Slattery that it is a violation of Federal law for INS offices to use
volunteers to perform duties normally performed by INS personnel.
July 1996: -INS Headquarters tells field offices that they are to continue accepting certificates from
NAS affiUates until they hear otherwise.
Sept 1996: -Mass naturalization ceremonies are held around the country, including one at Soldier
Field in Chicago in which INS employees are unable to control the crowd long enough
to hand out all the naturalization certificates and collect the green cards (estimated to
have up to a $30,000 street value).
-The Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice of
the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee convenes two hearings on
natiu^ization after requesting/subpoenaing over 30,000 documents from the INS, the
White House and the Vice President's Office.
I»
70
29714
Federml Re^Ur / VoL SO. No. 12S / FrijUy. lune 28. 1991 / Nodcet
ll(3)-00048 —
Impoft aad Export Act la *''~'Minit
t«lthtil]«a.Cod*ofFt<lanl . . .
RtfvUtlea* I UlLtt Um *bov« flinb
BmnltrfrHlj>nlioiiA«'aabDport«ro(
tha bwie out of oealroa«d tabtuaea
UittdtboT*. ■ ■
DttadfuMUUn.
C«a«lt.BiUip..
DipaljrAmltlaiilAdaUHittnler. OffJetef
D Innla m CcoUoL Drug Enforcmnmat
Admlallntioa.
(FK Doc tl-t54M F1M »-9-«: «:4S tm|
Immlgratien and Natunttzitiofl .
IINS N& IZTVtIl '. . ■ . \ \j',
CoflBah Lingiii j^t Aiworican Hl^lofy*
'andCMca,Standardixatf '■■«■■-
NaturaBatJonTMf. ;
AQCHCv: lauslfntbo tad Natanlizatloa
Scrvfe*. Juidea.
•cnwe NoUca o( prograBL
suMMAtntTlialmffligratloaaad -
Natunllzadoa Scrvlet (Sctvtce) U
pgnuiai tfaa development aad
Implemeatadon of a itandardized teat
for aalanlizadoa appUeasta ai aa
altenativa Dcaoj of mecdai certala
requiitmenta for aatunlizadoa aa
United State* Qdzcna. Thla aodoa U to
request written propotala from capable
entlllei who are iateietted la
partidpatlnf in thla protraia. The
Service expect! the itandatdlzad test '
will facilitate tha aaturallzadoQ of -
persona who aii^l be otherwise
hesltaat to apply for aaturallsadoa.
DATU: Wrlttea proposal* £roa pardea
laterested ia developlai sad .
ada^ilstertnf aa altemativa testtag
process based oa the ehteila ia tha
supplemaatary iaformadoa win b« •
acoeptadoa or after IaaeZB.U01;. ■
AaoMaso: Written propeaali *hoaU
be laaUed la trtplleata to Adjadlcatlaaa
Dtvlaloa. Isualgtatloa aad
Natatalixadoa Scrylca..42S I Stroet
NW. room 7223, WaaUagioa; OCasaa,
.row mmnmn ■^cwmTion obwriicp '
Stella }artaa,SaaterImaU|tatloa.'?. -
Natarallatled Serviea; «2S t StiMt- : '
NW. WaaUagtoa. DC aossi'TabphaM:'
, (2(B) si4-sn«. .. . ■ -.,''_ :-; i : ;.." -.: ; -.-.
' mtmstmitun MMmtATtewTbA.' .'
laaliratiea aad NadoaalUjr Act (Act).- '
prevldea tat the aatonlhaUea'eleaftaia
qualified allaar la Oaitad Slated > ■'- ■ -^ '
citizaaahip. Seedoa SU of th4 Act ■'
providea la penbaat part that .'■ :
appUeaata fat oattarilbatiea'mittt -
daowDstrateaattadsntaadiaJieC '.
ordiaaiy EagUsh Utetaey aad •
VaowtedfeaadaadentandlMofthe .
Uatoc7aad(ocmof|ovcraB»Btofthe -
Ualtad State*. The taualfradea Refbna
aad Ceatroi Act of 1988 (IRCA) ttqnlrcd
tha Sanriea lo'implaaeata siml]ar,test_
for appUcaata for penBanent resldenfe"
iiaderaaedea248aoftheAet -
la'TaspeasatD a public aotlee
pobliahad la tha Fadaiil Raglstar oa fair
13. ISSO (U FR 288H), to aaaounee the
Swvtea'aceaaldctatieaof '- '
InplaBaatadoa of a staadardlxed *'*
Enillah Laafaaia/QlSxcaship test for
aatataliziadoopiirpo*ea,atolalofll '
cooisaata were received from both -
' ouisida' aad iaalde the Service. Upon' '
tevlaw aad carafnl eoafidaritioa of '
. lliju Qogmfoti^ t}^ foQowlna chaaaea '
«rar* made to darlAr aad esqwad oa the
salecdoA criteria wUch appeared la . '
draft fbrm la the FadaolRatistatoa.^ -
CMtislea (S) has beea amended to
dariiy ^t tha "apptnral'of iadlTidaal .
test tesnlti relates to the maaaer ia
whldh the results are traasmlttcd to the .
Scrvioa.
CHtertoa (8) has beea aaicnded to
eaabia a tesdag eadty capable of -
■dBtnliteriag a test bi nipra thaa one ■
state, or oparadai wllfaia or under the
snpervisloa of a poblic school system, to
be approved la admialster the '
staadardlxed teat '
Critatloa (8) has beea smrndud to ■
ladnde tfaa t e quliem eat that the lestlnf
endty provide the a^Ueant with
evidestte of havtst taken the test If
result* are not provided the same day as
the teat The results provided to the
Servtee la ladl vidua! cases related only
tothaaeperseaspasiinf thetestThe .
Sendee will aot be advtaed of the
Ideaddes of tho«* penoaa who do not
paaa tha test aad ^flure of this Jest will
nave ao affect oa a pcnoa'a abUlly to _.
retake thla altetaadve test or be '
separately teetad by a SenrloeoIScer.' -
Six **»^^^***'T rM{oested
riaHflcadon of what would ooasdluta
baud or adsrapiesealadaa oa the part of
the aa^lcaat er lestiag afeaey aad how
fraud weald be detetmlaed We have
detecBlaad that It would be
laappteprlata to spader ia advaaea -:.-
- what spedfle type e( aedea* would . '-
eeasdtBta fraoA aa tfaU weuU'ba *eea ■
aa Ualttat the av^ority of^ Saryiea.
■ TWa«aameBtaf« jvlabea elarifieatMa
-aatetheeeectafefthawiltteapectioa .
■ of the teat aa.two saateaoea ware Mac
' reaubed to bt wiitia&«* opposed 10 ' ^
oa^ eaa tequlied foe the test mdar ■-'. ;
legalicattad. Whlla approval of sceriaa '. -^
' methodawllIhabaaednpaaliidMdual''
' propoaal* nbmlttad. It la bteaded that -
the eppUeaat must pass oaeee of the -
Oaa eomawdter requested that Q|e'-
test aaswera be teed to the appUeant ia
addidoa to the quesdoos. However, we
have dstenalaed that the oaly way to
ede<iuately test the apolleaars abiUty to
read, would be If he/she made the .'
choice of the aaswen beaed npoa what
I* read, aol what la alae lead to him/her.
Also the long tana late|iity of the lest
requires that there be ae qnesdoa.of the
tutor having Infhiancad the aaawer* of
tl>e appUeaat by. the maaaer la which,
the answer* are read, whether .. .
Intcadonal or aot
. Fhre ooamieaters re^ueatad that the
test either be aot lestrided to school
environments or reeoested that '
voluntary ageades be elowed to
provide the test The "eavirmawnr ia
which tte test Is givea Is aot restricted
nadsr the criteria, but wiU be a factor to
be oonsldersd la the approval of a
tesdag eadly. u It rdbtea to tha security
of the test Also, Um l e quli i eui aat la
criterioa (6] that tha lestiag eadty have
maaagemeat eoaHel of tfaa tesd^i site,
persoaael aad snppUea. doaa aot
preclude die testiag eatlly froa
contraedng spedlte serrloe* from
various tool eaddaa provided that
control and ovcrsii^ are mitntaiTltdi
Four oommeatan Indic ated eoaectn
cither for the amotmt of the fee or
reimbursement for local vdimtary
agende*. Tha Serrloe win have ao
Wwaw^a] liability er stake la the
tdmlnlslradoa i^ aay test The Service's
approval of the fee Is solely to lasore the
reasonableness of the fees charged.
One commeater raised die Issue of the
length of daie for which test results
would be valid. Aa appUeant for
oaturalizadoa must estebllsh eligibility
under seedoa 912 at the daM of me
-""»'"»""" oa the 'eppUcadoiL It Is felt
that one yeer la a leesenable eswnat of
'UmeiawfalchloooBtSaaalaaeeeplthe '
results of a staadardtaad test Therefore,
the test results wiU be eoasldered valid
In conaectloe with a Form N-400
submitted wlthla oaa year of die dite
the test Is passed
Any qnaliflod eadly may apply to the '
Serrloe for eoeeplaaea aa aa approved
teedag eatlly. The e^eemeat betweea • .
ifae Serviee aad tha laadag eadty win be .
nonflnanrlali Tha Servfae ahafl laear ae,
w««^w.4»| QabiUly **"i \^*mmAm (^ Qgjtf *
aapayBaa&leaaraalllyBder'.lfala >'
' preyam.The Sernea ay aa a to aaeept -
the lest tesolls from aa ^peeved eadly
as evideaca of a aatmltraHriw". :.
ap^eaarsabOliyloraadaadvnita - ,
Eo^aadkaowUdfiaflhaL. \ \
' govetaaaai aad hlstaiy of fte Ualted ~
Sutae aa required tar eecdda 312 o( the
Act wbea aaid appOcaat snbmlta aa .
appUcadea to file a paddea for
natnralixadoa wllfaia. oee year of— —
suecesifuOy passing aa approved test.
<* f C >Ort X T ll%-^ c
.Ik:
71
Th* p«M*(« of Ih* approved (eit will
net bo eeaatrutd u cvldcac* ol obiUty
to fpofk Cnstiih.
loi'lcriaud.
(xunpM, Ictu ira
tad (oe^ted Vt *»
.tateitlbitlbii .
oflMIV&lf
' qualiBM i(tl« mttfjini ucney);
(ZJIlSi vfrlttaa tMt wUlb« - ' '
'ooaitradadlaEagUiliuttwienbrTSO] '
qnotfon nalti^ciielo* put/iad tot '
with two diciitad MatmOH to ba '
wiittaaiDEiitlUh.natattwlIlba '
eonatraelad w'aa to b( eotnplttad tai bo
mota'tbta fetty-ffra (45] mlmilca. Tha- '
' ta«t qnattioiii and tba dictated °
■tatoOaa will ba laad alood la Ei9|3iih
to tha appUeaatt Iqr a <iaalUIad preclor
la patfoo. or audio eaiMtta or .video
tape. Th» aaiwrcn wHl act be read to
tlia.appUeaata,' .- .
(3) na tatt qoatlioai tad loaiinC
ttaadiudf for teat (oorca will ba ■
appravad bj^tha Sairlca. Tba tcoiiaf
■tandatdmut prorida tbatiba aiialmaa
paaalBtiooraMirthamnlltlpUefaoloa -
quaattoaawill bi aot IcH tbta eo
pcraant^Tlia loailBf itaadard mnit alto
pravtda for lattiiaetotT oomplctioa of -
oaa of 4ha two MBtcaeei. The tctt
quatttoBa or (eoriag i taadardi will not
ba diaaftd by tha taitiaf entity nalesa
approved or olraetad by the Sarviea. The
teit tanlla nbmlttad tqr appllcaat* to
tha Satvica an sot valid untU verified
by tha£arvle#:.Tha teiting cotity onit
develop, aad tha Service anut ooaear la
aay.fonaof electroaieornuaual .
trtjufaraf taet remit data boo the
eaUty to the Secvlca.
(4) The oonteat of the teit queetlona,
with tha axcapttoa of cuncnt political
offlca holder*, moet came from the lateet
edltloa of the Sarvioe'e Fcda«l
adxauhlp Tax&ook Sailea. Only tba
M-2S7. M-3ao. M-2n aad EadUh aa a
Seooad Uafaa«a Textbook Vaniaaa
(M-SOZ. M-a03.M.W4) are to ba a*ad^
Thata taxtbooka can be piir^atad boa
tha Ua GovaxBSMBt Pllatlui OSoa*
(51 TaetlBi aatttiaa aia laqoiiad to -
field teat tha exaadaalioB. la
cooperaiigq with dM Service, ^rior to •
In plei^ ealadogiTha laathti eadty thall
notl^tha8arv|caeftbaopeniB|o(i ' ■
new alia or doatai of a cita' wlihia laa'
boaiDaaa day* of aodi aetioa.
(6) Tha taatiaf adty moat ha capable
of admiidatatiai tha axamlaatlon hi
mota'.thaa one itato (to tadnda V3. '"-
Virpa Island«; CutsL and Puerto lUoo)^ -
or epcnto within or under iho . -
•upervitlon of a public s^ool-oystcm. la
(dininiitcring the examlaadda tb.e entity
Duit have maaafcaieateDntral oyer the ■.
ttetlaf ichadul*, taet locadoa:
authority over t«*tia(BarMimaL aad ' .
ictpooaibiUty for aaadtdaappUea."- •> '
Service approval eaaoot be traqrfanvd
to aa nsapproved eatlly lor . .'■ ;.
idfflIai(tratloaoftaata.naiaaiiag ; .°
entity n^oat epaun^ if u ji w i i i r iautly ' t ■ ■'
pi^v^dlaf teat prapafattaa batniedaa,- .
that iaat tUadaidt are tUlellyfiaOowad;
Tha fc« cfaarMii wlU be datanplnad by
the approved antiiy with Im; '- ' - 7
coacBRtaca d tha-Saivloa.'lBatUKGalloft '
. of tha f^.tiaoQatam^ b^ tabatlttad .; .
with <sy propoaaL If tht appUeiat^Ula
thalaathaor^willbafivn^.. .
oppoftBaity to rateat.oaa t&M.'al B9 - < :
addlUasal coat*. Tha rataatihall ba •'
vtriatiasofthalalttaltaat' -'.-:' .'''' -
(TJjOaServloawlllBiaiBtiL&al^of. '
tppreradlaatiataatlilaaa^wniQak^ '
ncfa llstlag avallabia la thC^nUle jopaa
teqnert. Tha icttial aadty f( ic^Uivd io .
provide raaaoaabia poblie aat5aa,of the'
teit locatloa aad artiadtila. Al Uaat ..
Sflaca day* prior to tha begtaalat of.
etd aoath. tha tettiaa aatily ihu
provide the Service with ateport of tha
•dwdnled teat dataa by leeatiaa for &•
conlaf BSOBtiL - ' ■ '; .~v
(8)Tlia approved tatlag esUtyJa'. -
mponalbia for aooring the axamlnatlaa
and ihall provide the rmaltt to tha. -.
applicant and tha Sanrloe by&a '
liftaealh boalneaa day from (hj dateof
tha teat ]! .eat reaulta are aol provided
to the appllcaat oa tha day'of tha'tcat a
receipt or othct evidence of having
taken the taat will ba provided.
(S) The tcattng aatlty ahafl-piovlda teat
Mcsrity and taat iatasity aabiact to ,
review aad approval by tha Servlca. .
(10) Tha taadai aatlty win b« '
respmilbla for vari^iai the idaaUty of
the peraoa taldat tha teat' ' - . -
(11) The Service raaarvaa. withont -
aolica, the rffht of oaaita lanaetioa'te
detemlaa tha coatiaBed raaUablllty aad
Integrity of tha teat and laatini .
(13) The iMling entity ouit provide
(h« Scnrioe with quanuiy ra>na(emeot
report* throughout panlcipailoa la the. -
program. Tba report* ihall ladade, but
are not limited to, oicnihly iiatUtica by
. a (eating atta on tlie mimber of ' . -
appUeaal* who take die tcet-aad &a - -
Btuaber-ofperaoaawlwpaaaaadfalL- -
■ '. b«ii*>prOji."li»C ■ 1 ,1 .."v ■' - ■
C«DaMcN«i7.' •.'■ . •.vLT,"".-'
Notan(l*eUaaS*r>riet.' ■,.'■',.■
_ (ntDocn-UMned»-9-tt:i-4Saa) ■'
° aaijHa loaa Mi^tMi
X
(U) Tha Service taaervaa tha right to
famova aa sidty from tha approved .
taglatar for good eaaaa. The taatiat-
enttty will ba Botlliid la wridag of it*
lejuuial from the approved raglataiv and
Bmat oaaaa ■^f»<«»* tiffB Immadlalaly
upoB.focetet of aacB notfo^ No^appaal .
Uaa from tao dadaioQ looBiiv*, boi a
laqaaat for taonnililaraaoB aiay bo °. .
aatartalaad by the Aaalataat .
. Comadaalaaarfor AdJadleatioBa, , . .', :
ExamiaatiQaa Braack. CaalralOfltei.
\Vaahtaigton.DC ' v, ■..•-•. .V.:, •'
OEPARtUENTOfUsOR .
Owicia.of.tho Sowttwy
AflO ft cy nOcordkaaplnfl/Raportinfl
Ra^iAwMfits Under Ravlaw by ttia
Offle«'ef Hanagcmant and Budget
(0MB);'
BaiAgnwad *
ThaOepaitBieatofLabor,lacaiTytBg '.
oat ila reapoBalbtUttet tmder tha -
Paperworic lUdaedoa Act (44 U.S.C - .- ..i
Cbaptar S5)i ooaaidar* ooBBBCBta-oa iIm
reporting aad reoordkaeplag' * " *
l e qulmu eata that wiO affect tha pobUc- :-
liat ofSaeerdkaapiag/Ilepordag ,' , ;
Raqabeaaala Uadar Raview'
A* B8oeaaary,.tha Deparlmeat of -
LabarVal publlih a lUt of th* Agency
leuuiilkacplng/icpuillug reqoiRfflcnta *
under review by tha Office of
Maaagemaat aad Budget (OMB) liaca
the Iaat lift waa pobUihed. The li«t will
have all eatriea groitped lata oew -
collectiea*, raviaioBi, czteaiiona. or ' -
relaatatem*Bta.TheDepattDental '
Qearaaoa Office wid, npon raqocat b*
eble tin adviaa mambcn of the public of
the natBra of the particular tnbmitiloB -
they era ialarcaled la. Each eatiy laay.' . .
""■««<" tha foUowiog lafonaatlon:
Tha Agocy of tha Department Jtsoing
thla reoniikaeping/repating .
lequliaoieaL
The title of the recordkeeping/
l e poitlii g raqBh amant i
Tba OMB aad Aaeaey Identj fl cadoa
numban.ifeppUcawA . .
Howohaatberaeordkacpiag/ ' .'. ■
icpuitlug raqoiiaBMBt la oeeoed ~ • ■■
WbewUl ba raqobad to or aaked to
report or keep racorda.
Wha&ar email boilaetaea or-
orgauliauOBa are affartad.
AaaailBmtaofihatotalBaadMref '
hosra Beaded to coiBpIy'witbiha .
raootdkaeplBg/raportag reqtdrimeatai . ' ■-
aad tha average .hooa per reepJBad fBt ..'
Tba BBBibar of (ofma la tha laqoart Mr •
-V approval. If applIcabIa.U.'\'<:^^«l-'~— ::i.'
72
J.
PROPOSAL FOR
MXTtJRALTZATTQM ASSTSTAMCE SERVICES
TO- BECOME AN APPROVED
TESTING CENTER
Pr«B*nt*d to:
U.S. DSPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ZKMISRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
423 I Str««t N.H. " ,' ■
Washington, DC 20536
Presented by:
Naturalization Assistance Services
2980 Lakeland Highlands Road
Lakeland, ?L 33803
July 18, 1994.
73
xij^iigcaujiun a»j>-i I'ta^ui oax < .-. _±on sexvice to oeci.^e a tes-in= entity and«
to develop and administer a standardized test ss an alternative means
of neeting certain naturalization requirements for naturalization as
United States citizens.
Upon approval as a testirf? entity, Katuralizazion Assista.-.ce Services
will becona a sub-corporation of Right Kay Driving Schools, Inc. The
principals in Right Way are Paul W. Roberts, rrestdent/Treasurar and
Julie P. Roberts, vice President/Secretary.
1) Right Way Driving Schools Inc. is a private institution of
learning, regulated by the State of Florida as a Driver I.Tiproveaent
School, and licensed to administer and test applicants in a course of
study for first-tine drivers that is ret^ired to obtain a Florida
driver's license. Right Way Driving has developed driving programs for
the Ndtional Park Service and the Department cf Energy. These programs
include classroom instruction covering the duzies and rights of
citizens and how laws are passed and enforced. Tha students nust^ also
successfully complete a standardized final test.
2) Naturalization Assistance Services proposes to administer a written-
test in English, consisting of a twenty (20) question raul-lple choice'
test and two dictated sentences written in English. The questions and
dictated sentences will be read aloud in English by a qualified
proctor. The answers will HOT be read to the applicants, kn alternate
20 question multiple choice test has been developed for those who fail,
the test, on the first try and need to re-test.
3) Students must score at least 60% -on the multiple choice section and
must correctly write one of the two 'English sentences, which will be
read aloud to then.
We understand that the results are not valid until verified by the
I.N.S. llest result data will be provided to I.K.S. as required by
manual means using the U.S. Postal Service or any other courier
service where proof of delivery is required-.
4) Thd content of all the test questions, with the exception of the
current political office holders, cane froia the latest edition of the
I.H.S. Federal; Citizenship Textbook series (K-287, M-289, K-291)
5) Prior to implementation, the examination will be field tested in
cooperation with. I.K.s. ' " "t* '
r ■ _ '• ■ .*?,- i'-
' Vr ' ' .•:• ■ ^i ■■■ V
6) Ha will beVcapabla of conducting tests $ft noret^than one statev
Initially, wat;>*lll conduct:' testi: in PloridS/and *«x?^s-. He will' have
control over :thi' testing ScJied^iB, -test l^tion^prociirenent.and- '
nanagenent;. hiring: author!^ 5a^r€esting«e^^ arid *?•;
raspohBibiiity.- for" needediStoppriTM;; Testr^andiVdi' wiir bef strictly.
??>'o«ed'gIrid4viduBlay»nduetlSarIt^st! prepSratiofiScourses will- not •
have. access.tp.itestLquestlbns"7 SS« test: f iler^and; jelipplles ^ ;> ' .
3.
74
fee based on the following projected expenses' for testing 1,
applicants within a 6 nonth period:
Secretarial (6 month salary) $9,000.00
Part tine proctors 5i0.00 x 170 hrs $l,700,oo
Tests and answer sheets $ 600.00
AdvertisDent $2,000.00
Test site rental Si, 200.00
Telephone '$1,500.00
Administrative support ' $1,000.00
Office supplies $1,500.00
Office rental $2,400.00
TOTAL $20,900.00
If the applicant fails the test, he or she nay retest one tiae at no
additional cost. The retest will be a variation of the initial test.
7. We will provide reasonable notice each conth in regard to the
following month's schedule through public media advertisements. He
will notify X.K.S. at least IS days prior to the beginning of each
month the scheduled test dates and locations for the coning nonth.
8. He will score the exam and provide results to the applicant and the
I.N.S. by the fifteenth day fron the test date. A test registration
receipt will be provided to the applicant as evidence of the applicant
having taken the exan. We will provide only the names of those that
successfully complete the test to I.N.S.
9. Tests and answer sheets will be controlled by pre-assigned numbers.
All tests and testing material will be locked in a file eaibinet when
not in use by the test proctors. Test proctors will not leave tests
or test materials on desks or tables that are out of sight of tlie
proctor. .Once the test have been scored and recorded, the related
material will be locked in a file cabinet. While transporting test
materials to and from the test sight, the proctor will transport the
material in a locked brief case.
10. The identity of each applicant will be verifliad by the proctor by
students photo ID. The only, forms of ID acceptable are those issued
by any state or rederal goyemaent.
11. On sight inspection by.'^'.N.'s. is welcomed by Haturalization
Assistance Services. '«' ' .
J .-. -'
, 12. We will proii^de the liHvS.-wlth quarterly reports. These reports
, will have monthlv stjatistl^V datJailing test loeaiipns, number of
^ people testing, j^uniier bfv.^ccMsiCuIAinsuccessfuli'^poapletiena. '<•■
75
NAXv-SALIZATIOK ASSISTANCE SERVICES' PROPOSAL <
■rna pursosa oC t^is r.«no is to explain and clarify bob* issues in regards
to becorain? an approved tcstir.3 entity. NAS i« planning to use hotel
nieeting rooss in" the cities where we test. These meeting rooms will be in
high visibility locations so that applicants will be able to find them wit
little effort. The hotel meeting reoas also previda' a good atDospb'crs for
proctors, applicants, and those waiting to take th« test. These locations
will be sxibnitted for approval as soon as I.H.S. taXes action on our
proposal.
We will provide a telephone nusber to I.H.S. so that any I.H.S. office or
officer nay contact a member of our staff in regards to any applicants '
paperwork or test results. This phone nusber will not be for the general
publics tise.
Prior to the first .test in any city, ya are going tp* notify the local law
enforcement agency' so that they nay pest a job announcement for part-time
worJt as test proctors. Prior to tha test dat« we will contact, interview,
and train the' proctors so that or -subsequent tests in that city, we will
not need to repeat this process. Wa intend to use off-duty law enforcecent
officers because they GEKStAIX? neat our standards for employment. The
proctors will be managed, paid, end trained with tha understanding that
employment will be on an on-going basis. The duty of a proctor will be to
make sura applicants do not look on other applicants answer sheets, that r
notes or books are brought into the test room, that no one telks after the
test has begun, and other duties to ensure test security.
Reporting tha test results to ms can be done manually-in other words we"
could send a typed roster of those applicants that successfully complete
the test. If a certain computer progran Is used that will make the transfc
of information easier, we would be Interested in using that method.
Thara will always be an official from our company at the test site to deal
with any mai^agement, set-up, or questions that proctors night have.
Z have enclosed a copy of our license from the State of Florida and also e
copy of the Florida Oepaztsent of Lav Enforcement background check on ee.
I was a law enforcement officer for 17 years and my wife Julia was a law
enforcem4nt officer for approxiaately 10 years.
Thank-you fro your consideration.
Paul tf. Roberts
J
76
Author: Frederick H Toumay «e HQCOU
0«ce: S/13/9S S:02 PM
Prioricy: Normal
Receipc Requested
TO: Rainona L HcGea
Subject: Re: ABC 20/20 Interview/Skip Tolllfson
Message Contents
John:
M.
Earlier this week, wa referred a matter to the 010
involving allegations against former INS employee Skip
Tollifson.
EmploYeea have suggested to ■"« ^»l^ t Tollifson approved
MAS, a natural liation eeac^n^ entity even though thev
did net meet the Service's criteria, failed to properly
monitor ka5: he was overheard negotiating for,
employment and has now violated the cost employment,
restriction laws, and misappropriated foy his own
commercial use the INS ' slogan, 'Citiienship OSA* .
When ABC News interviewed Alex Aleinikoff , they raised
the issue, apparently from a former KAS employee who
they refxisa to identify, that Tollifson accepted golf
trips from KAS while still a federal employee.
Jim Meeker and Cava Olendennlng accepted the referral
aa informational; they aza willing to conduct an
investigation only if the INS furnishes soma leads
beyond the mere allegations.
Adjudications has Identified approximately 5 people who
have information regarding Tollifson' s activities and
are willing to talk.
In an earlier conversation with Doolnick, he indicated
that because Tollifson is no longer with the agency,
that your branch lacks, jurisdiction to investigate.
Meeker subsequently expressed tha opinion that if 010
has jurisdiction, so do you. Adjudications is
sensitive to tha face that Infemation apparently
continues to b« 'leaked' to Tollifson and they ara
reluctant to Interrogate his fezvar coworkers.
Wa anticipate Alax might ba re- Interviewed by ABCtha
week of OC/17 and h« would like us to take affirmative
steps to look into this- matter and coonenca an
investigation. But, I 'aa at a loss as to irtio should
interview these employees to develop the leads so that
OIQ can conduct aa invastigatloa; please advise.
Ramona MeOee, of ny office, is baadllag this matter and
will be available Friday, OC/14, awaiting your advice.
Z will be out, but'can be reached at S*S30C if you need
additional information.
fted Teumay
77
Author: rrederick H Toumay at HQCOU
C«te: S/7/9S 8:0J AM
Priority: Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: Ramona L McSee
Subject: Re: Telephone Conversation w/ skip Tolllfson
.. . Message Contents — ......
Ramona :
As you know, I was out last weeX; I meant to cbec)( with you yesterday
on what progress had been made. Did you transait a synopsis of what
has transpired to Jani'ce Rodgers? I didn't see anything on Amicus
when I checked.
Call me when you get a chance.
4
Reply Separator
Subject: Telephone Conversation w/ Skip Tolllfsoa
Author: Raroona L HcGee at BQCOU
Date: S/6/9S 4:37 PM
Fred:
I wanted to make you aware that I had a telephone call today from Skip
Tolllfsoa on behalf of KAS, again requesting that IHS consider
appearing with the six entitles oa 30/20. Skip Indicated that KXS is
really interested in meeting with us to discuss the issue and that
John Wendell, Geaeral Counsel for KAS, and, Paul Roberts, CBO for HAS,
want clarification oa their current status .with IMS. This call was In
direct response to aa earlier call made by Joha Wendell to Janice and
I regarding the 20/20 Interview and the possibility of Jofaa Wendell
meeting with us personally to discuss the issue. Z have ny notes froa
my conversation if you need them.
I think that INS or DOJ needs to make a d ecisi on fairly qyiicidy oa
what we wlah eo do about Skip's contacts wiCfl INS and associatloirwith
MAS. Hopefully, Janice Rodgers has beea able to determine if Skip' s
actions have violated any post-employment statut es. If not, at a bare
minimum. I think we need to have a 'cease and desUL'' Utter issued to
Skip so that he is made aware of what he can and cannot do based »
his prior employment wita ms. . . .• — : . . 7 ' '
Ramona KcGee
78
s
f "
•4 w -4 o n
MO
« cc
9NM ..
4J «H 4J
U —-4
O •• w B II
£ tl O -r^
3 « k. O 3
^4 n
tJ O •>
c > •
C H I'
<l C •
4i> •^ «
C iJ n
■H C «
o a
b u
o «
o c
m u
•
• c
• o
a
^4 •
■H « C
-4 b M
^ O-H
a^j '^
a a u
a -H «
£ U
o
o <M a
» O
I £
z a iJ
1 o>-<
I -0 »
I a p-
O 'I J< o
-H s U 'Q
u o a
a c A a
CM S
a a
u <M a o
n o
-H a a £ -<
■c .4 £ z a
79
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (/
WHEREAS, Natundiztfioa Assistmoe S«rvioM (heretnafter HAS) vru apjioved by d»
Immigntion and Nataalization Service (beremaftar INS) on Angust 12. 1994«at an authorized
teating eatity, to •Hmintrfw « gmdardLBed EngUah langnagn, United States histtsy, and civica
examinatioii, v^ch asdifies Section 3 12 of tlie Immigntion and Nationality Act (heninaftEr the
4^) fft iMtufK^^nw uppHfiitM, with aifii mUhnriMtion heing cnntingmt upon KA.yi enmpliiifla
wiifa the twelve 02) item Criteria set fixth in die 1991 Notice of Ptogran, 56 Fed. Reg. 29714-28715
(June 28. 1991);
WHEREAS, NAS delegated said authoiity to administer atandaidized English language.
United States lustoty, and civics egaaninations wliicb satisfy Secdon 312 of the Act to its liciwgees
through oonmct oi license;
WHEREAS, Asian Pacific Reaourees (boeinaftex APR), was a liceosee of NAS, widi
audiority granted tlirough license and delegation, to administer stmdaidized English language.
United States histoiy, and civics wcrnnhwitinns vMdh satisfy Section 3 12 of ifae Act to applicants for
natunlizBtion;
WHEREAS, INS learned of alleged inqn^Rieties of theaNAS licensee APR, related to test
preparation and administrsdon, which i^on review, INS detemiined not only to be ettdiely
inconaisteat with d» standards estaUishad under thaafbremantioaBd 1991 Notice of Program but
also to be a jirnnm^nm violation of criteria rix (<) and rnne (9) of said stmdazda;
WHEREASt on November 22, 1995, by &osimila *^f"''«**^ at 20:47 (8:47 pm) Eastern
Standard Time (EST), INS aiispeadad die andniQr of NAS and its lictnaeni to artministw
of diB Act and 8 CFR f 3 I2J(aXl):
80
WHEREAS, oa Novomber 29, 199S, INS issued a win to all district dincton (except
foreign) and ofBcoraHit-Qharge (exe^ foidgn), notifying than of the suspension of NAS's testing
autfaoriQr under section 3 12 of the Act, and directing all field ofBces to no longer accqn any NAS
^v^fif-atw Tiling «<««< fltlfllhnwi t nf leainw ^11 le ^uii aiMnf fhy niirtiinili?«> rifin hy wiy nafiimlrwrti nn
^iplkant dated (m or after Novensbar 22, 1995;
WHEREAS, on December S, 1995, NAS respectflilly demanded <n itn Tpwiiiiit "in-person*
hearing widi INS for recoosideniion of this matter and requested that INS immediately Hft the
suspension order so that NAS licensees could resume administering citizenship examinalioas;
WHEREAS, on December 8, 1995, INS issued NAS a Notice of Admmistntive Hearing for
Suspension of Section 312 Testing Antfaotity of NAS, with a scheduled hearing date of December
20, 1995, with said hearing to be hdd before Louis D. Crocetti, Associate CommlssicHier,
Examinations, INS, for reconsideration and denovo review of the NAS suspension;
WHEREAS, lyon review and reconsideration of this matter, both NAS and INS agreed fliat
potential litigadcm in this case would be complex, lengdiy and costly to all patties conceaed and any
decision of by a district court would be subjea to appeal by the losing parties with die final outcome
UQceitain; and
W H K.Hg A S, both N>^S "M INS Mi*vw t^nt W?*Tlffl P«*rt nf rtiJQ mrttf iy }n ^if^r hf^ \j\%f!fitMf
and best serves the interests of justice by avoiding a complex. lengthy and costly trial, and
suboequent qypeals which could last several yeaia;
NOW TESREFORE, INS and NAS enter into dtia Stipulatod Setdement Agreement (die
AgrecmantXstqwlatedutitcoiis tit i it esafuttandootiqileteiesohaionofaUmsltnain uiu ti ove ri y
between the paitiesk and agtee to die following:
81
L DEFlNTnONS /
Ai used tfaronghoutthu Agreement, the foOowiag definitioos ihall ^iply:
1. Tlie term "party" or "parties" iball vply to MAS and INS. As the temi appUet to
INSJtshaU include their ageoti^einployve^coiilnctmsafld/orsuocessofB In o£Boe. Asthetenn
qiplles to MAS, it shall indode NAS, its o£Boea, dinetors and employees.
2. The term "test,* "tasting,* or *staBdardixed citizeoaUp test" shall tefSsr to any
wfinmaHnn , cwl nr ^ariltan, anA «ny tMt j<W[ i Mi«Hn ti nf fjMcamim frr m«iwH««^^ fry ^r sMlity
to read and write Enelish and on ibeir knowledge of United States history snd govenmieot, as
leqoiied under Section 312 of the Act and S CFR } 312.
a. SCOPE OF SETTLEMENT AND EFFECTIVE DATE
3. This Agreement officisllytsnninates die suspensiMi action taken against NAS on
November 22, 199S. and reinstates NAS'sandiatity to administer standardized ddzenshq) testa snd
issue HAS certiflcates noting the fulfillment of section 312 requirements fee nsturaliztfiaa by any
naflnliationqjpUcant This Agteemeot shall become effective upon egoecutioa of this Agreement
m. TERMS
4. NASshaU provide prooC^tefinmofanoiigiiial or photooq^. by filflaailflaiaiiai
Decembcf 13.1 99S, of tha eaBeelllinii at APR'* Krt-nvt to ii«4tTriTii«t>r «f trfmrffwiH /^-p^^^tiir rrffTff
pursuant to section 312 of Ifae IMA;
modification;
6. MAS ahaOpnvida to INS, in writing, wiflmifaiity (30) days oftfae data of aettleoMnt,
tn INS review and ^tpcovalt'quali^ control pncednres ^Oati are omently.in place at will be
f MshHihe drWhiAclaariydeKiie^aefHHAfeffiw«1iM«»rtt|^ff|wi^' gf^H^ Mirf<w<^ ^
82
die integrity of the testing proceduzes utilized by NAS licenaeea, provided that INS. within thirty
(30) days from the date of this Agreement, shall request that all other authorixed testing entities,
licensed pursuant to the 1991 Notice of Progr am , provide similar written statements of quality
control procedures, within ninety (90) days from die date of this Agreement ;
7. MAS .hull pnviAHnnMS inwritinq ViyAorlQy nOriwiTw^nn TVr^^ bern. 199| ^,
8 list of all NAS licensees which continued testing after the November 22, I99S, Notice of
Suqienilon, without notice thereof and provide a swam affidavit Paul W. Roberts, CEO, NAS,
attesting to NAS's first knowledge of the INS Notice of Suspension on November 27, 1995, and
attesting to notification of all NAS licensees of the suspensioo, via &cslinile during the week of
November 27, 1995;
8. NAS ghaM provide to DJS. in writiaf. hv cloae of business on D«sc ember 13. 199S-
a list of all qjpUcants, including fiiU names, "A" sumbeis, and test site locations. vAo passed NAS
examinatlbns administered by NAS licensees between November 23 and November 26 1995;
9. NAS agrees that INS may utilize any information discovered in this matter fiar any
lawful purpose;
10. NAS shall release INS from any loss incuned by NAS arising in>m the suspension
ofNAS from the date of suspaiaioa throtigh December 13, 1995, including but not limited to, any
NAS finaooial loss, attorneys feea and testing fisea, and die parties agree that die 1991 Notice of
Prograni, die Ad i nlnlsUrtiv e Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C 9S 551 eL ieq.,B]a(GkaBlL£fillfigSJB£BBSiD&B
v. AttWfMvOeBeML454 P.2d92a fflC Cir. 1071), iv4 imy nther qy KcaMa ligmtMB apply to my
fkitnre admiidstntrve actiaaa against NAS or NAS Uoansaee;
11. NAS shall coopcntefiillywidi INS in ao^inveatigiiiofi and/or pcoaacution of NAS
Hceasees b the maaner prescribed by law;
^.
83
12. INS may direct NAS in %vritii]g to suspend aad/or cancel the opendoQS of any NAS
licensee with respect to ^^ch INS determines, thiDusb invesdgBtion or other infbnnation. that
improprietiea exist in fee administration of iuimn>H7«iion tests ex ftaudnlcBt testing practjces, which
IMS deems to be in pr™* ^<it violation of the stmdatds established under the 1991 Notice of
Program poblished at 56 Fed. Reg. 29714-2971S (June 2S, 1991). subject to the Administrative
Procedure Act, or any other qiplicable Uw, and if NAS fidla to do so, INS may suspend the
operations of NAS;
13. Upon execution of this Agreement, INS shall rescind wire no. HQ70133, dated
November 29. 199S, and issue a new wire to all field and tegioDBl offices, by close of busiiMss
December 13, 1995, reinstating the section 312 testing authority of NAS aixi directing all district
directoia (except foreign) and ofScen-in-charge (except fioeign) to accept any NAS certificate
noting the fldfiUment of section 312 requirements fat natumli2alion by any naturalization ^jplicant
datod on or after the effective date of this Agreement, gugit that INS will not accept certificates
issued to applicants tested by fbnner NAS a£Bliate, APR, which are dated OQ or afler November 14,
1995;
14. CNS shall ensure that the new wire provides that all NAS certificates dated on or
before November 22, 199S.andNAS certificates issued betweenNovember 23, 1995 and November
26. 1995, by NAS licensees referenced in paragiq)h 8, will t-zw^tTTrw to be honored, unless fee
Adjudications Officer tntexviewing the natuialization q>pUcant has fiim reason to believe that the
cotificale wu fiandukndy issued, fifimt feat INS will not accept certificates issued to applicants
tested by fboner NAS Uceosee. APR. wfaid are dated on or after November 14, 1995;
15. INS shall ensure tet an disttktaadsuboffioeslkxconfiimationofieceiptaf the wire
to Headquuten AfQudkatiaB, Attn: Craig Howie or Pearl Qmf, 202-5144)19S, hv elnne of
bii«ineMaiilVMmi>wirll 1QQ<-
S
6.
84
16. Upon receipt of* list of oames and addresses foi all NAS licensees. INS shall. \u.
cloM of bu «inaM Decemher Ij 199S. issue a letter to NAS and all NAS licenseea now in good
standing, cjqnHlBg our regrata fat any inconvenience the suspenaon action mi^ have caused to
their business operstions.
IV. REPRESENTATIONS AfCD WARRANTY OF TERMS
17. The parties leprsent that they know Dodiisg in this Agreement that exceeds the legal
authority ofthe parties or is in violation of any law. 045*3 counsel represeot and warrant that tfaey
are fiiUy aoihorliBd and ea^owcfed to enter into this Agreement on bdudf of Ae Attorney General,
the United States Department of Justice, and the INS, and acknowledge that NAS eaters into this
Agreement in reUanoe on such rtpreseotBtioD. NAS represents and warrants that its CEO, Paul W.
Roberts, is fiiUy autfaorizBd and empowered to enter into tliis A^iraement on behalf of NAS, and
ackso^edge diat INS eaten into this Agreement in icUanoe on such lepreaentation;
18. NAS and INS represent that tins settlement reflects the lettlement of any and all
199S. Tliete are no other a gi c ciumta and/wundaa tandhigs between the parties other diandioae set
fordi in this settlemeot agraemeBt
//
///
85
19. The uodersigDed, by their signatures on bduIfofNAS and INS. WBrnnttfait upon
cocaeudon of diis Agreement in tiidr respective capacitiea, their prinripila, agenti, and succeaiora
of nich principals and agents shall be fiilly and uaequivocaUy bound hereunder to the fiiU extent
authorized by law.
DATED:
i>.
(EC IS SB
MICHAEL L.AYTES
Acting Assistant Commissionet, Ax^udications
Innnigntion and NaturaJizstion Service
PAULW.R0BER18
CUef Executive OfBcer
Natunuizatlou Assistance Services
PAUL W. VIRTUE
Dquty Oeaeral Counsel
Immigration and Natunfization Service
86
7.
20/20 INTERVIEW
T. Alexander Aleinikoff
Executive Ajsodatt Commistloncr, Prognms
and
Bdan Ross, ABC-TV Inveitigatlve Coirespondcnt
Monday, June 10, 1596
Transcribed from the audio recording for.
Immigiation and Katuralitation Service
425 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C 20536
87
INTERVIEW
QUESTION: Left ittit by talking about what W9 were talking about at d\e *
ceremony - it seems at once so solemn and yet joyous. What's going on there?
ANSWER: Well, I think it's a lot like a maniage ceremony. There's
something about the statement of commitment that one is making to hopefully a
permanent paimer for life, in effect, that belief, that commitment, that sense of a
new beginning that leads to both laughter and uars.
For many of these people this has been a lifebng dream. They come as
immigrants. They've been in the country a few years, they've established roots
here, some of them for a long, long time. For many people in the world it is the
greatest rite they can apply is U.S. dtizeiuhip, so all of that is pent up in that one
moment, and to observe this - 1 have seen a number of these proceedings over the
last few years. Every single one is moving. Senior citizens becoming dtizens,
dUldren becoming dtizens from every country in the world signing on to America.
It's a very moving thing to witness it as well as for the partidpants.
We who are bom here don't choose our dtizenship. If s given to us. But
people who choose it, to watch someone choose it is very -
QUESTION: And what does it say about this country?
ANSWER: It'stenifit It's terrific to be part of a country that most other
people in the world want to join and be permanent members of. We welcome it.
This agency and the admiiUstration supported naturalization for people who want
to join us and who qualify.
QUESTION: The people who are there, taking that oath, what are they really
swearing to? What have they accomplished? .What axe they saying?
ANSWER: They're swearing to allegiance to the United States Constitution,
to living in and partidpating in, hopefully fully, in a demoaatic sodety, & sodety
which Is self-governing; to obey the Constitution, to be willing to bear arms on
behalf of their new country, and to living as good dtizens, partidpating
economically, sodally, dvilly in their new country.
. The Commission of Immigration who has spoken to people at these events
often, often says to people who are being naturalized, give something back of
yourselves as wtlL You will benefit People who come to here, who have chosen
this country/ often have the most incentive to contribute, to give something back.
QUESTION: The people who have taken that oath, they worked hard to get
that point
ANSWER: Th«yhave
QUESTION: .What have they done?
ANSWER: Well, theyVe entered as immlgranti, and they've waited 5 years,
usxtally, to be naturalized. Many wait more ftan tha^ 7, 10 years, before they dedde
to take the oath. They have demonstrated knowledge of ^ country's history, of
the English languege. They have maintained good moral character. They have not
been convicted of serious crimes, and they have shown that they have roots in the /
community and will live here peacefully.
QUESTION: Why is that important? Why is that important for them to
have demonstrated knowledge of this country's history and of the English language.
ANSWER: Well, we think it's important that when someone becomes a
dtlzen that they will be able to function as i citizen, to participate in
self-government.
QUESTION: Is there more to it than that? Why would they have to Vmow
who George Washington Is, or what the Coiutitution is?
ANSWERj Well, you may not have to know any particular fact about who
George Washington is, but a citizen should be asked - they're asked a range of
quesHons to someone can have some general sei\s« of the history of this country.
It's important to know something of the history of this country to participate.
QUESTION: That is an important thing?
ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: If people are cheating on that test, is that a serious problem?
ANS^VER: It's wrong, and serious, and we've taken steps to search out the
cheating and do something serious about it
QUESTION: How long has that been going on?
ANSWER: I guess as long as there has been a Government program there
are some people who will try to take advantage of the system and bend the rules, so
it's hard to know how long it's been going on.
We've been avb'are recently of some significant probleir\s and have taken
tough steps to deal with it in '^he future.
QUESTION: What was behind the thinking to allow private companies,
for-profit companies, to go into the business of citizenship tests?
ANSWER: One thing that's Important to think about when you talk about
giving the citizenship test, you should be aware that the giving of the test does not
entitle someone to dtlzenship. If s ru>t as If you go In, take your test, fill out your
questions, and if you pass, presto, you're a U.S. dtizeit
QUESTION: If s a big step, ti\ough.
ANSWER: Ifi one element of zrvaivy. Before somebody becomes a dtlzen,
they have to pass a dtlzei\5hip test, they have to demonstrate knowledge of English,
they have to communicate in English -
QUESTION: Speak freely back and for& in English?
A>J5WER: Yei, but they also must demonstrate that they have good moral
character, they have to show that they have not been convicted of aiminal offenses,
they've paid their taxes, they've signed up for the draft if they are supposed to have
signed up for the draft, and if the/ve lived here for the requisite a period of time, so
the dtizenship test Is one of the dements that we use to judge wheAer someone's
89
ready for citizenship or not
QUESTION; Wh»t was behirul the dedsion to make that a for-profit
business?
ANSWER: Well, it wasn't made a for-proflt business. What the Service did
4 or 5 years ago was notice that there had been some complaints, actually, by people
that were not treated as well as they should be by the Immig;ration officers, or that
they found the interview daunting, that the test was daunting, and further that
there may not have been a standardized test given across the agency. There wu
some thought that if we worked with outside groups, testing entities that had
experience in testing, they could standardize the test and they could do some of our
work for us, at least ^t least ihat element of certifying knowledge of a citizen.
QUESTION: Does that makes sense?
ANSWER: It can make sense. Right now, people go to colleges and
universities based on tests given by outside testing entitles. It's not u if eadi college
in the United Sutes requires someone to walk in and take a test That kind of
testing is done by outside entities, and much of Government work can be done by
outside groups.
The crucial thing to remember here is that even though the test is
administered by an outside entity for-profit or not-for-profit, every single person
who is naturalized in t>.e Urited States receives an interview with an INS officer,
and at that interview, if there is any indication that there is fraud in the testing, or
that there was any irregularity in the testing, the person at the interview is denied
citizenship or retested by ^e INS officer, so it's really just a first line of tes^giving.
QUESTION: So It matters or it doesn't matter?
ANSWER; It matters to ti\e extent that St allows some of our work to be
done elsewhere so that we can concentrate more on other things we need to do in
the naturalization process, end it may make sense for testing to be administered by
an outside entity.
QUESTION: So there was concern that people were afraid when they went
to see immigration officers?
ANSWER: It can be daunting to see someone in an interview in that way,
or more Importantly, if you take the test before, from our perspective, if someone
fails the test, then they don't come and sperui time in front of our Interviewer, so it
saves us time in the process, toa
QUESTION: There wasn't an effort to make it sort of an easier process?
ANSWER: No. There wu not - there was an effort to make it customer
friendly.
QUESTION: Customer friendly.
ANSWER: But there was not an effort at all to reduce the standards.
QUESTION: What do you mean by customer friendly?
ANSWER: Well, that we tMnk if people spend the time here and have
90
qualified for naturalization, just as they're reengineering their processes around the 7
Government, that this ada^nistration has cared very much about, then we think we
have an obligation to our customers, to our clients, to work with them in a way that
allows them to get the benefits to which they're entitled in a way that is not
daunting or off-putting.
QUESTION: Do you think of prospective citizens as customers?
ANSWER: Well, I think there's a view in Government that all the people
here are our customers. Certainly not something that you sell citizenship. In that
sense it's not a for-profit transaction.
QUESTION: But it has become a for-profit transaction, giving these tests.
It's a multimilUon dollar business now, isn't it?
ANSWER: The testing entities charge perhaps $25 or $30 to give a test, yes.
QUESTION: How do you dedde who should give the test?
ANSWER: The» are regulations that were adopted 4 or 5 years ago that
required a national organization to demonstrate their ability to give a test.
QUESTION: What about the firm, NAS, are you familiar with that?
ANSWER: They're one of our six national organizations.
QUESTION: Aren't they the biggest?
ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: You have heard of them?
ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: How did they get your authority to give these test?
ANSWER: They were one of six rational organizations a few years ago that
presented proposals that were judged.
QUESTION: What did they have to qualify them to give citizenship tests?
ANSWER; I haven't reviewed the application. I don't know exactly what
they-
QUESTION: We asked for Ae application/ but you wouldn't give it to us.
ANSWER: Well, the application, as I understand it, &x)m what rve been
tdd, may include proprietary in^rmation, and in that situation -
QUESTION: Is it true that their background was in dziver'f education?
ANSWER: I think thafi light, yes.
QUESTION: Does that qualify them?
ANSWER: No, absolutely not Simply giving -
QUESTION: But they have become the biggest in the country.
ANSWER: Yes, but tht question is wheO^cr they can give the tests fairly.
Now, remexhber what we're talking about We're talking about a set of
questions that are admlnlittred hopefully in a secure manner, aiul d\e results are
91
recorded fairly and reported to us. It doesn't require an entity to have a Ph.D In
history and economics, but th.e fact that they gave tests on driving education does
not qualify them, no.
QUESTION: So what did qualify them?
ANSWER I an't speak to the initial decision. I was not a part of that
decision, but I don't know -
QUESTION: Why can't you give us the application? We've asked for it
formally.
ANSWER: As I said, as I understand it. It may Include proprietary
ii\formatiO!V and in that situation we either prefer people go through the Freedom
of Information Act, and if you're entitled to It you'll certainly get it, or to go to the
submitter themselves and get it that way.
QUESTION: The Federal Register said the following criteria: 5) the testing
entity mvtst demonstrate experience in developing and admiivistering reliable
standard examinations In the English language and dvjcs areas. Would you call
driver's education even dose to th^at?
ANSWER: No, I wouldn't.
QUESTION: How did they get -
ANSWER: I don't know what else is in their application. I don't know
whether they were - what th.e presented. No, but people present proposals as to
how they intend to carry this out and what their authorities are.
If it's not - if they only demonstrated that they had given driving tests that
would have troubled me without a lot more.
QUESTION: How can we find out what it is that persuaded the Federal
Government to give them this rather powerful authority?
ANSWER: Well, we can look that Information up and let you know. I
don't have It In front of me now.
QUESTION: We've been asking for some time.
ANSWER: Well, I think I said, as to the formal request, that we do prefer
that if there is « possibility of proprietary information that you use the Freedom of
Information Act, and whatever you're entiUed to, obviously well be happy to turn
it over.
W« don't have seaets. We don't want to have seaets here. We want this to
be an open process. We want our testing agendes to be aedlble tgendes, and that is
why we considered a number of Important reforms in recent months that are going
to tighten that process up, and In fact we have a regulatory review xmderway which
should be completed shortiy whldi will take a very hard look at these assodations,
and if we determine ftom past experience there's a greater risk with for-profit
agendas u opposed to non-profit agendes, we won't hesitate to change the rules.
We're intent on a fair, secure system.
QUESTION: NA5 hu ivovt more Oum 400 test centers where the dtizenship
92
testis done. Are you satisfied vnth the job they're doing? ^7
ANSWER: We have entered Into much doser monitoring relationship
with NA5, as you probably know. I'm sure you know a number of ninths ago we
temporarily suspended NAS because we were not satisfied with what they were
doing. There were allegations of wrongdoing in MlrmeapoUs, and we took very
qxdck action and suspended them and reached an agreement with them under
which they agreed to monitor more closely their affiliates and, in fact, several of
their affiliates have been suspended.
Just last month we received a criminal conviction involving the test taker in
Hawaii that was involved in fraudulent activity which is something we take very
seriously, and we're intent on pursuing.
QUESTION: You suspended them, but you got them back in the program.
They're still In business today.
ANSWER: NAS is a national organization. There are a number ut affiliates,
as we poir.ted out. We're monitoring their activity. We're in contact with aU the
national organizations they have af^ated.
QUESTION: Are you satisfied with what they're doing?
ANSWER: We are more satisfied. Vv'e'ie going to
keep a dose watch over them.
QUESTION: What's changed?
ANSWER: Well, under the settlement they have to tmdertake doser
monitoring and secure answers, and nuke sure the grading is done elsewhere.
They're on the line now, and they know that if there's anything farther they run
the real risk of being out of this business altogether.
QUESTION: How often do INS inspectors go into their headquarters and so
on and look over their documents?
ANSWER: I don't know that information. Youll have to ask the folks in
Florida?
.QUESTION: Do they ever go there?
ANSWER: We have sent several members recently from headquarters that
installs an on-8it« inspection program whidi we started up.
QUESTION: It hasn't started yet?
ANSWER: No, but the local districts have always hAd the authority to have
spot'dvecks from time to time. I cant tdl you the districts or the places the/ve gone,
but that has happened in the past
QUESTION: A former employee has told us that when she worked there
she regularly saw tests -
ANSWER: A former employee of INS or of NAS?
QUESTION: Of NAS! She tdd us that she had regularly seen tests where all
the sentences In English were written in Ae same hand.
93
ANSWER Well, that's exactly •• I mean, one of the -
QUESTION: And she told her superiors and told
(inaudible).
ANSWER: Her superiors at NAS?
QUESTION: Yes.
ANSWER: In the national organization.
QUESTION: In the national organization.
ANSWER: Well, I mean, that is obviously - we knew - what we have now
put into the monitoring system is a requirement ^at there be outside scoring,
scoring outside the test, affiliate test-giver so that those kinds of comparisons can b«
made, and I believe in one of the criminal cases that was relevant information, th«
handwriting was the same, that obviously the raised good points.
QUESTION: She also said during the time that NAS was under suspension
they were receiving behind-the- scenes help from an official of INS, a Government
official.
ANSWER: I have no knowledge of that either way.
QUESTION: Who was Skip ToUason?
ANSWER: Skip Tollason was someone who up until March -
QUESTION: He described to us t]->at he was sort of a point man In this
program.
ANSWER: He was one of the people, as I understand it - I'm not fully
aware of how that unit worked, but he was one of the people who was in contact
with the outside organizations and reviewed their applications.
QUESTION: Was it his ]ob to help them get around suspension, to give
them legal advice?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: To pass on documents from the INS to them?
ANSWER: No, it was not
QUESTION: If he did that, would diat be In violation of anything?
ANSWER: I don't know that getting around the suspension means you're
giving legal advice. I should say &at I really don't feel very comfortable in
commenting more, because there is an ongoing investigation involving a former
empbyee.
QUESTION: Do you know where Mr. Tollason works now?
ANSWER: I beUeve he's working with NAS now,
(Pause:)
QUESTION: Do you know where K&. ToUason works Tww?
ANSWER: Mr. Tollason left the INS, and I believe he's now running one of
7.
41-503 97-4
94
the affiliates that's assodited with NAS, and that's part of the ongoing investigation
we have.
QUESTION: What would be wrong with that?
ANSWER Well there are rules in Government about worWng on matters
that one has worked on in one's job in particular situations.
(Pause.)
QUESTION: Do you know where Mr. ToUason is
working now?
ANSWER: I think Mr. Tollason left In March of this year, and I believe he's
now working at one of the af^ates of NAB, which is part of the ongoing
investigation situation. I don't feel comfortable commenting beyond that
QUESTION: What would there be about that that you would want to
investigate?
ANSWER; Well, in certain circumstances it's not permitted under Federal
law to work on matters that one had a direct interest in when working in the
Federal Government.
QUESTION: According to the former employee of INS who we talked with,
he was almost on a daily basis spending hours and hours on the phone with NAS
top man Paixl Roberts, during th.e time of the suspension, saying hang in there,
we're going to get you through thi5, don't you worry.
Now, how could it be that on the one hand the INS is investigating and has
suspended this firm, and yet Tollason is apparently on the phone offering
encouragement and trying to fmd a way to get ^ound this?
ANSWER: Well, these are things that are under investigation, and as I say, I
don't feel comfortable commenting on them.
QUESTION: Is t\at troubling loyou?
ANSWER: It depends on what was being said, but yes, it could be troubling.
QUESnON: Do you know the name of the place he works at now? Here are
his business cards. Now, one day he was a senior INS ofSdal and then the next day
he's 4 corporate officer.
ANSWER: Well, yes, we're troubled by this. The name of his new
orgardzation Is Qtizenship USA, which is also the name of the Commissioner's
program for promoting naturalization, and it wu the fact that we received his
bu^ess card that sparked our lidtlal Inquiry into whether dxis w&s appropriate
behavior by a former employee, so we are tiJdng a look at this quite dosely.
QUESTION: How could someone tell the difference between the
Government Citizenship USA and th« for-profit company run by ?aul Roberts and
Skip ToUaton, Qtizenship USA7
ANSWER: WeH I think that's « real problem, and ttiat's why we've got the
general counsel's ofSct taking a look at It;
7.
95
QUESTION: Are you convinced that you acted appropriately in taking him f
off suspension, g:iven the fact that Tollason as an INS offldal was involved in trying ' *
to help them?
ANSWER: Well, I think those are two separate Issues. Whether or not
Tollason's actions with NA5 were appropriate, we are taking a look at now.
Whether or not they should have come oack off suspension is a question of whether
ti\ey can reassure us that they are now conducting their business in an appropriate
fashion, and that we are doing an ongoing monitoring off and wUI continue to do
so.
QUESTION: They came off suspei^.on in December of lAst year, and have
they acted differendy since?
ANSWER: They have Tljey have - beause we have required them to
come forward with a plan u to how they will moiUtor this, under this plan they
have already dismissed a number of their affiliates. We view that as progress.
QUESTION: How many?
ANSWER: Tm not sure that I'm - several.
QUESTION: Several. For any particular reason?
ANSWER: I think a range of reasons. I can get you further information. I
don't have it in front of me, but it includes things like indiscretions in the testing as
well as perhaps overscheduling the number of interviews. I don't know the
specifics, but it's a range of issues.
QUESTION: In February axxd March of tfiis year, according to the former
employee, tests where there was apparent cheating were being passed. All 200
people from one place in California had similar handwriting on the English
sentence, and she was told by her superiors, vice presidents of NAS, to go ahead,
pass everybody.
ANSWER: Well, the first thing is, I would urge that person to come
forward, beause if those people are committing fraud, serious fraud, we want to
know about it and we want to stop it, and we'd like information from the employee,
from outside groups who know anything about this. We will take action.
We convicted five people in Hawaii in the last mondi on this. We will take
strong action,
r But secondly, if » Important to remember here thAt simply passing the >.
\ dtiztnshlp test do^ not guaraiUet someone dtlzeiuhip. That person must still )
< come before an INS exaaiiner, and if that person cannot speak English, understand S
/ English, or in any wajr appean that the application is not in order, he or she will not \
I be gruxted U3. ddzenship. ^
^ QUESTION: The former employer (old us that some of Ae NAS affiliates
had friends who were on Immigration inspections in Callfonda and passed flirou^
people -
ANSWER: Again, those axe allegations, flut is a very serious charge.
10
96
corruption of INS extminers. If that is true, we v,1U take very strong action agaix\st ~ t
them. ••
QUESTION: Why Is that Important?
AMSWER: It is important dut people that comply with the law, that our
officers comply with the law, that people meet the requirements of citizenship in
order to be entitled to US. citizenship. Thaf s the Federal statute, and that's the
agency policy.
QUESTION: In giving that test do the affiliates of NAS or any place else, do
they assume a sort of governmental power, and are they held to a certain staiulard
under the law?
ANSWER: They don't usume a certain power. They're not acting u
Government agents. They're acting as private contractors, and again, I have to keep
stressing this, the mere passing of the test does not endow them with cltizei\ship. .
It's merely one of many prerequisites to attaining citizenship.
They are not Government agents, but they are still subject to the rules.
Whether or not they can continue to give tests on behalf, they have to meet our
requirements, and if they are participating in fraud on a Government ofEdal or
corrupting public officials they are subject to Federal aiminal statutes.
QUESTION: Is cheating on the test a violation of Federal law?
ANSWER; Cheating on the test - do that again. Actually, I'm not - it's a
technical question. I'm not sure I know the answer. Do you want the real answer,
or do you want me to -
QUESTION: What is - what do you - lef s talk for a second-
(Pause.)
QUESTION: Is cheating on the test a violation of Federal law?
ANSWER; If a person cheated on the test and did not satisfy the dvlcs test;
then they axe not eligible for dtizanship, and if they were luiturallzcd based on the
cheating, then they couldn't be naturalized and that would be a violation of
citizenship law.
QUESTION: How about from the point of view of NAS, or any other places
chosen to give the tests? If there's a pattern of cheating which they Ignore for som*
. reason or another - to make some money ~ is that a violation of Federal law?
ANSWER: Well, it would cotainly be a violation of our understanding ai\d
they would be terminated from acting on our behalf in terms of giviivg the test
There may be other violations we could speak to the U.5. Atfomty about in terms of
mail fraud or other kinds of claims of defrauding a Federal agency.
QUESTION: Tcople involved NAS in Hawaii have been cortvlcted.
ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: There were serious allegations in Minneapolis. Yet NAS Is still
in business. Why?
11
97
ANSWER: Well we ~ u I said, we've entered Into a monitoring agreement
with NAS. They tenninated some of their affiliates. Timiy have made - to this
point taken steps we think do iu>t require a total termination.
QUESnON: You're satisfied as to how they^ performing now?
ANSWER: Based on the ir\fbiination we have in front of us at this point w«
do not have grounds for a total termination, but we art watching them closely, and
if fur^er things come to light wt will not hesitate to suspend them again or
terminate our relationship with &em again.
QXJESn^^: Could I show you a piece of tape that we made undercover of
NAS affilUtes?
ANSWER: Sure.
(P&use.>
QUESTION: This tape was made after the agreement you made with NAS
when they said they were going to dean up their act at a place they had been told by
their employees had (inaudible). Take a look and see.
TWs is the Dallas - it's called Spanish Business Center. They classed the test,
English citizenship.
Just holding it there a second. Do you d\ink you can teach American history
and English in a few hours?
ANSWER: No, you obviously can't teach it in a few hours. What you can
do, hopefully, is to give a refresher course to people about things they should have
gathered over 5 years of residency.
VOICE: (on tape) All day today we're going to review the exam. We're
going to see everything that's going to be in the exam. The exam consists of 22
questions. Two of the questions are going to be two sentences in English, which Tm
going to dictate to you, and the rest of the questions are going to be multiple choice
questions. You will see the quetdon, and then you will see four answers so that you
caj\ underline the correct answer, and - are the questions going to be in English or
Spanish? All of the questions are in English.
I don't know any English. You don't know any at all? Oh, you do know
some. Well, in other words, today we are going to set all of the questions that will
be in the exam.
Everything we're going to review today - for example, how many stars does
the flag have, 50, aU of that will be in the exam in English. In other words, we're
going to see - what we're going to see today will be in the exam. If s not that I'm
going to give you any surprise questions.
QUESTION: 'There's a woman that says she kiu)ws no English. She's thert
to take a dass, and take the test Canftuitbe?
ANSWER: Well, it can bt if the afSllate is basically stealing people's money
here by taking someone who knows no English, because A^t person will not get
through the Q^S interview.
12
7.
Remember, there's an interview to follow here by the Immigration Service, /
and people have to pass the spoken English test, and if it's dear from die questions '*
that the interviewer Is asldng the person cannot speak English, and does not
understand English, then dearly they couldn't have pused the civics test
appropriately and we would be very troubled by that event, and the person would
not be naturalized on that basis.
■So I view that as a defrauding event. If s a consumer's right to a fair test, and
at that point it seems to me that that person should be told Oiat they're unlikely to
be able to qualify for dtizenship.
QUESTION: That didn't happen.
ANSWER: Thafs a problem.
QUESTION: What does it say about this operation?
ANSWER: There are problems, and we would lilc< to investigate whaf s
going on and take steps.
VOICE: (on tape) Some sentences that Tm going to dicUte to you in English
will come from these three, okay. Vm going to take words from each of these
sentences, and I will aeate two new sentences, okay, so then the first thing we're
going to do is, you are going to write these sentences on one sheet of paper, and later
we arc going to go over these in fulL
Over one side we're going to take this sentence,
and we're going to write it over on the whole page.
The hat is new. Which is the word for hat? The hat is new.
Okay, and the last sentence is - okay, you don't need to know the
translation, but you need to know how it's writfen, basically.
Basically, the new sentences that I will dictate to you will come from these
three, yes. In other words, they're going to be dictated, in other words, right?
They're going to be dictated, okay. Tney will be dictated, and they will come from
these three. There will be no new surprise words. They will be (ictated.
After the break well start &e exam, okay? As soon u the exam starts, the
flrst thing I will do Is dictate the two sentences.
QUESTION: Is that the kind of thing that you envisioned when you
(inaudible)?
ANSWER: No, it's not
QUESTION: What's wrong wiA it?
ANSWER: Well, the test hu to be more than giving people three or four
things to memoxiz«, taltiing a S-minute break and then asking them to put it back
down on paper. It should show some basic knowledge of our history, our
Govemmeni our form of li/c, arvd our language, and I dont think - at least horn
the bit you've shown me there; it doesn't seem that that process it being served by
this kind of activity.
13
99
QUESTION: And yet, as you miy or may not know, they advertiM that they /
arc fully authorized by the Federal Government, by the Immigration and •
NatmaUzation Service, to represent themselves as extensions of you.
ANSWER: They do at the moment, and this is vihy we have undertaken
additional monitoring^ and very important here —
QUESTION: TWs is after NAS -
ANSWER: Let me firdsh my sentence if I could, please. We are in the
middle of a full-scale review of our outside entities and the process for certifying
them. We're loolung at a range of options, from the INS doing all these tests
themselves to going ordy to non-profit agencies, to looking at other kinds of
arrangements where the districts will b« directly responslUc for it, to looking at the
local teveL We are in the middle of a wide-scale review of this, and it should be
reaching its conclusions shortly.
QUESTION: But while you do that there are thousands of these tests being
given every week.
ANSWER: Again -
QUESTION: People are paying $300, $400 for these tests.
ANSWER: Again, all these people are tested again before an INS officer
when they come to the Cs'S, so people are not being nativalized who should not be
naturalized.
QUESTION: But at the moment they have your offidal blessing. You've
had questions about them, you've somehow resolved them, and they continue to
operate.
ANSWER: We've resolved them for the moment based on the St. Paul
experience.
QUTSnON: This was after all that
ANSWER: Tm saying, there was a St Paul affiliate that we thought were
not doing an adequate job. They terminated their relation with the affUlate, and
when we get additional informttlon about any oth«r af£liate, and if the evidence
wanants we will not heslute to take stK>ng acdon agairu
QUESTION: Lef s take another look here at more of the test.
VOICE: IhtavU War began in 1861, okay. You don't have to worry about
that one. That won't oomt up, okay. That one wont corns Aq>.
QUESTION: Hwf could he know that wldu>ut seeing the test?
ANSWER: Well, If i an inappropriate comment, of course.
QUESTION: And you don't hear much English.
AN'SWER: No, you don't; but people can demonstrate their knowledge in
other ways. Pm lest troubled by that tiian I am by someona saying, hen's a &ct, but
don't wmy, it's not on d\e test Thaf s not a very good pedagogical technique.
QUESTION: What does it mean?
14
100
7
ANSWER It means that our tests should be testing knowledge, and the • •
people should learn as 3\uch &s they can about the coimtry and not just (inaudible)
in.
VOICE: Are there any questions?
Yes. If you don't pass the cxim when the answer comes back from
Inunigration, we will help you in the next one again. For the next one, on the - but
until today, no one has not passed the exam. No one has passed it? No, everyone
passed It No one hu not passed it.
QUESTION: A hundred percent successful.
ANSWER: Well, but what's interesting, if you heard him, he said, if th*
question comes back from Immigration and you haven't passed. He may be talking
about his own pass rate. He's concerned -
QUESTION: I don't think so.
ANSWER But he's concerned about what the Immigration Service will say
when that person gets to ti^e Immigradon Service.
QUESTION: Do you know the success rate of NAS?
ANSWER: The success rate at NAS is not far off the success rate of the other
organizations or from the INS when it gives this test They're all 80 to 90 percent.
QUESTION: Ninety-three percent Remarkable, Isn't it?
ANSWER: Well, actually, as I said, it's fairly comparable to INS success
rates, which are about 90 percent, and in other testing agendes, whic^ range from
the eighties to the nineties as weU, so it's not that out of the ordinary.
QUESTION: Tt.ey advertise on radio in Dallas, guarantee you pass the test.
Is that appropriate?
ANSWER: Well, I think I prefer that they advertise that they give the test
QUESTION: Right, and of course, they always add that they're ofSdally
approved by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Doesn't that bother you?
ANSWER: WeU, I think one of the things that we're looking at In this
regulatory review is whether we should be worldng with nonprofits, fo>profit$,
whether we should be doing all the testing ourselves, all that will come up in a very
thorough review to make sure we've got the most secure testing situation, that
really makes sure diat people who want and deserve dtizenship get it
QUESTION: There's a bit xnort hert of the test agaiiv.
VOICE: Okay, because if t against the law to speak in Spanish once &\t test
start«. In English, try to ask me u much as you can in EngjUsh, wd if you can't, wcU
thtti; ask In Spanish, okay, and raisft your hand and TU come to you.
QUESTION: It is the law, right, it must be given in English?
ANSWER The test has to be given. I didn't understand his statement that
the dass could not be given -
QUESTION: He's talking about giving die test
15
101
ANSWER: The test must be given In English, yes.
QUESTION: So without any Spanish spoken.
ANSWER It depends what the question Is, but if it's a question about the
question and the answer's In Spanish, that probably is not appropriate.
VOICE Okay, turn the test over, okay. Open fl\e exam. On the right side,
aha, lower right, you'll see two numbers, 1 and 1 They are black, okay. 'Diat's the
two sentences, okay. Now you're going to dictate them? That's what Pm going to
do, dictate them.
The first sentence:
VOICE 2: The hat has a rose on it
VOICE: I will repeat the first one, okay.
VOICE i The hat has a rose on it
VOICE: Iwillr&patltagam.
VOICE 2: The hat has a rose on it
VOICE: Once again.
VOICE 2: The hat has a rose on it
QUESTION: Is that how an INS inspector would give the test?
ANSWER No, it's not, and be aware again that when a person comes in
they will be tested -
QUESTION: In terms of this test?
ANSWER ~ on spoken English. No, we would not give a test on -
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
ANSWER: It would be a fairly simple declarative statement, but it wouldn't
be repeated, I don't believe, as slowly or as many times.
QUESTION: Now I finally want to show you what went on in the multiple
choice section of the test.
Clause.)
QUESTION: What do you thirJ; of that?
ANSWER Well, that* a absolutely inappropii&te and unacceptable, and we'll
take action based on tivis case. Tm gUd you brou^t it fo our attentioiu
QUESTION: Is there any reason he should be pointing out anyAing on that
test, whispering like that?
ANSWER There's certainly no reason to be giving answers.
QUESTION: -Anything else, any other possible interpretation?
ANSWER If s hard to imagine a good interpretitloiu Fd be Interested in
what he said he was doing. We can't Jump to conclusions quickly, but if he is giving
aiuwers that is not permitted. If • iruppropiiatc, if s a breach of our agreement, and
if I - 1 don't know H U's criminally defrauding the country, but if s certainly
16
102
7.
defrauding the import&r.ce that we attach to the test and to citizenship.
QUESTION: This is an affiliate, a big one, of NAS. You've had problems in
Hawaii, in Minneapolis, and now we're sho\\dng you this. Why are they still in
business?
ANSWER: Well, we can't be everywhere at all times. We have actually
done some spot>checlcs in Dallas, as a matter of fact
QUESTION: At this place?
ANSWER' I don't know whether this place or not, but we have done a
tighteidng of procedures. As I keep saying, we're undergoing a thorough review of
this procedure, the whole thing.
QUESTION: I know you keep saying that, but thousands of these tests are
being given every week by NAS afflliates around the country. Doesn't that trouble
you?
ANSWER: It troubles me. It troubles me to see something like this. It
troubles me. We've taken concrete action, gotten convictions, we've s\ispended
them --
QUESTION: But d\ey're still in b\isiness. They're making lots of money.
ANSWER: They're making mor«y. There are also many people who are
going through their tests in a perfectly appropriate fashlort The majority of the
million people that were rvaturalized in this country this year have play»i by all the
rules. They're entitled to citizenship. >-.
QUESTION: Isn't that all the more reason to stop operations that cheat on
the whole concept?
ANSWER: Absolutely. Absolutely.
QUESTION: But they're sdll In business. You haven't done that.
ANSWER: V/e question the actions of the local af^ates, not of th.e overall
agency. We have -
QUESTION: The overall agency is aware of this if they have been told by
employees they were cheating end they were told to ignore it They're making $20
evtfy time somebody takes one of those tests. They're miking millions of dollars
off of this. Why are these people still in business?
ANSWER: This Is information to us, more information, and well take
appropriate action based on the information wt receive and develop.
QUESTION: How much more do you have to know? You've had the
problem In Hawaii, criminal convictions, y^u had ti\c allegations in Minneapolis/
one of your own employees helping them out, going in business with them ^ day
h* left Government Doesn't that raise enough red flags?
ANSWER: It raises red flags that we will taka very seriously and we will
take a dos«, hard look at now again. You can't prejudge. You have to give people a
chance to explain what's going on, but this is significant evidence; these are
17
103
troubling consequences, and I believe we will pursue it.
QUESTION: I tike it this is not At all what you had in mind when you went
down dus road with a change in policy.
ANSWER: No, of course not Of course not No one wants questions to be
given away. No one waivts anyone naturalized or even to come to an INS office
(inaudible) a process that shouldn't be taken. Thtfi not appropriate.
QUESTION: We talked before at the beginning of the interview about that
emotional moment of citizenship. Most people - and we've met them, too, have
gone out there and studied lUght and day and they've been in those classes, and
they've squeezed in two jobs, and thcy^rc gone to school, arul ^ey really learn what
the Constitution stands for. When you contrast that with what we showed you
today, how do you feel about that?
ANSWER: Well, I feel two ways. I feel very troubled by an agency that is
making money from people that they should not be, although ask the applicants
themselves -
(End side 1.)
QUESTION: Doesn't the whole thing blow your mind? Doesn't It raise
questions about whether this is the appropriate policy?
ANSWER: It certainly does, which is why we've got a very serious policy
review underway, and they'll be announcing results a montii ahead.
QUESTION: If s been going on for months.
ANSWER: We've taken strong action in the put months. We've gotten
criminal convictions, we've suspended affiliates, they've suspended additional
affiliates -
QUESTION: Even after that, we found this going on in Dallas.
ANSWER: There will be instances like this. There will alvrays be instances
like this. It's our job -
QUESTION: How can you believe it when they say -
ANSWER: - to do something about them.
QUESTION: Have they really cleaned up their act at NAS if this is going on?
ANSWER: This is something we will pursue quickly and effectively.
(End interview.)
18
104
J An 3 1995
CO 12851. ..i^i
^
Subject
Proposal on Naturalization
Interview Waivar Pilot
Diu
DEC 28 894
To
T^
Managemant Team
Ftoffl ortica of Policy ^
and Planning
.• r'
In the inttrcst o£ a broad-basad tnanay^mftnt raviav and
dacision process, ^jattache'd for consideration is a multi-part
proposal for waiving naturalization interviews for selected groupi
of applicants. The propoaal emanates from a June 1994 survey
conducted by a naturalization work group. The Commissioner has
requested that the group's recommendations be reviewed by managers
and discussed at the Executive Staff level. >
Because the proposal is multl->f aceted and derived from a
longer report, reviewers are encouraged to refer to the
attachments which accompany the proposal. Having done so, you are
asked for your views and comments on the items found on the check
list.
^*yftfafflgl»;ga^a'??a^^^ byi
JaKjl^ as HQOPP will ~te coordinating comments for the
E*xe~cutive Staff. All District Directors and Chief Patrol Agents
should provide an information copy of their response to their
respective Regional Director. Based on comments received, a
decision package will be presented to the Executive Staff for
action in early February. If you have any questions regarding the
issues presented in the submission, please contact Skip Tollifson,
Adjudications (202-514-0597; r"fax 202-514-0198)! ); if you have
questions regarding this process, please contact Walt Wondolowski,
HQOPP (202-616-7711; fax 202-514-9718) .
Robert L. Bach
Executive Associate Commissioner
Attachments
D1W)P_
/ DIDJV.
DlCOtr.
or-
car.
105
EDIT PROPOSAL
(Response Form)
?■
SUBJECT : BENEFITS-RELATED NATURAUZATION INTERVIEW WAIVER PILOT
Pleasa provida your nspons* and ratum to tba Offica ofPoBcy and Planing at Haadquattan
notatarthan Decamttr20, 1994.
Office of Policy and Planning: Room 6042; FAX 202-514-971 8
Worklno QrouB Recommenditlone
1. Establish a waiver of the naturalization Interview for all applicants who are under 18
years of age, both at the time of application and the date of admission to citizenship.
missjc
Agraa DIsagraa Comments_j^ (See Attached)
2. Establish a waiver of the naturalization interview of all applicants over 65 years of age on
the date' of filing for naturalization and who on that date have lived in the U.S. at least 20
years subsequent to a lawful admission for pennanent residence.
Agree Disagree . Comment s i/^ (Sae Attached)
3. Establish a waiver of the naturalization Interview of ail applicants over 50 years of age on
tne date of filing for naturalization and who on that date have lived in the U.S. at least 20
years subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residehce, AND who have passed
a standardized test administered by an auUiorized entity IN ANY LANGUAGE which
demonstrates their knowledge of U.S. history and'Bovemment
^ ■ . y ^
Agree Disagree ■■ C^mmantsj^ (See Attached)
A. Establish a waiver of the naturalization Interview of an applicants over 55 years of age on
the date of fiOng for naturalization and who on that aate have lived In the U.S. at least 15
years subsequent to a ltMfu\ admission for permanent residence. AND who have passed
a standardized te.st administered by an authorized entity IN ANY LANGUAGE which
demonstrates their knowledge of U.S. history and government
Agree DIsagrta Comment s u^ (Saa Attached)
106
s-
5. EsUblish a waiver of the naturalization Interview of all applicants who have passed a
complete standardized citizenship test conducted In the English language administered
by an authorized entity for persons who can speak ^glish using ordinary words in
everyday usage to be verified at time of appearance.
tk/ci
Aorm m Dlsaan e Cemm»nt s>iX , (S»9 Attaehad)
6. Establish a waiver of the naturalization Interview for all applicants within the purview of
P.L 103-416 as it relates to persons who are physically or developmentaily disabled or
mentally Impaired as Is related to naturalization eligibility and who have been so certified
by an INS designated qlvil surgeon.' i .
Agre e Disagree ' ' Comment s t/ (See Attached)
7. Establish a waiver of the naturalization Interview of all applicants who entered the U.S.
prior to reaching the age of 16 years and who were graduated from an accredited U.S.
high school.
Agree Disagre e Comment s ix (Sea Attached)
8. Establish a waiver of the naturalization Interview of all persons who have completed at
least four years of college study and hold a baccalaureate degree or higher and who
presently are employed as members of a profession, as that term is defined for
immigration purposes.
Agree Disagree Comment s \/ (See Attached)
9. Establish a wralver of the naturalization Interview for all persons who have completed an
INS approved Adult Education Course and have attached to their applications an
acceptable Certificate of Completion. ■
Agree Disagree Comment s iX rSee Attached)
107
^
10. i^aeammendad Stntaov : Eneourag* all distrlett to participate In the full waiver interview
pDot prDgram.' LocaEze control and rtfsponalblllty to encourage field officers to perceive
the pilot as a personal agenda Item of the District Director rather than a nebulous gojil of'
Headquarters.
Agn» DIsaan B Comments ix(St« Attachtd)
Nam»' ^*'*'^ Shuler, A/ADDE q^^^. January 18, 1995
OroanizatTon: DOJ/INS E::aainatlons
Phone # (2] 4) 655-3049 fAXt (214) 655-3032
108
?.
Bxe^tive Synopsis of
Results in 30 Days:
Re-Engineering (Jftte Naturalization
Process
TAff NoXuralization Re-EngineerUig Team,
•'May 1995
PRC, tnc. Httda- contnal to Ima^givSon and Netrtntaatmi Sendee
109
NATURAJUZA'nON JRE-RNGlNIEKRING \^
M 70U up Aworc, Oonunlssioner MdMncr hai cmblUbcd aatanJixAdoji M a Servics pilail^.
IV Tn^^ ;bit S9»i, vo mtm review coirent ptoonsM to faictMio offideacy, IiEprovo cutomor mvicc,
ait:'S!>fiv^)tniifiicyo{tbofixKcu. Tbo ServfaodccUon it to proceed vittitooiuM of acdontibat
b>9fnpaimss Bmnsa Pnxsu Re-eogfamtins (BPIQ t« a vtiikje to flmdiaaeatiil retUnUag tod ndlcal
r?4^gB of ow n>tiii«U««toiii p;pp?^»<« ia ontct tq t>x)i>s n't'iml is^rovonwM xwpdoA to iMpoad to Ae
hKAhSicd dotoand for nxtnmlizatkin.
ThogoalofBPRbtonsipniTQibctatcgcigrofduaiumnUztti^ «bQo u the tMw tiot9
iv^pnTvioiE tbe .ocrvkv we fdve to onr castomcn, both the opptiaiats md tbo Atoertcan poblk. bttegri^
ia tidis process it ^dilevcd by nuMog the ri|tit dcdalom. mlUdng qipniniate tctonnee to moat tfao
<cas«49. aod complctiss^o woric withla otabli*hqf} ttme Ibes.
Tlw main poiat of (be rpHcoj^lortttof cfibit oatltoed in the ROacbed (uiooxny ia tiut the Service
Rt<fi3 to bsttcr utHlns ita imokiccs. One pf die most time coDSuming parts of tilie pracou ia tiio
ioi^fvicw. To bcner servo tbe pj^bili: while aUdwioj; better use of na a4)udicai»r's time, the lopoa
pn^r-cs ufc of an "Expaodcd ^ jroinnti on Proc'Ss'', wUdi will allow tho MJudicator a way to detonninc
dc Kopc of the imcTvkw iKxxicd. This coacq^t, wfll be tested at ±Q Los Angdci Re-eojloecring PHot.
Q-uic? crcu ttmscd in ifac rqrait locludc an cxpaosioo of outside testing for Section 312 reqnixaoem!,
aod c i^rpaier rclluce on coauoualcy biucd organtodons to auift applicants wlA infbniutian and fbici
prcpanaiioD, tsA to assist the Service with logistics Pt fiinl bOKcinp. Tbo report also rooosuuadf tbo
II?': croaWccOcaoiosfiv dm cotiy, sod contrsoorsuppon for records fUoctloDS. Some rcgulatloiB and
pUky vUl cbangp. Tbis is coosistcm wifti our goal to atop ovei>fqpi]ating and to conduct most of onr
b^T^sj thiou£h Opcranon jDstnicdkxa and tundboolc vbbA can more readily bo revt^ to accooasodRto
c!;r^Ki, ■■ *
Even with the recent rcprogranuiuns and the rctoutosa it will bring, tlic oaturalizadon receipts
0>00,QQO projocted for FY 95) still ;e<iuire th«t we improve pur process if wo aro to achieve a re»ooablo
pr?«?sLag timo. and confer a timely adJudicAtion wMle Improvuig integrity la the dociaioa-mnUog
F:?<:c53.
The BPR report includes shoit and long tam proposftla. Some of these proposals wo mey ad^,
T^hik ?fo rosy defer othcn, or <h*cnnine tixgr wc va^ appropxiaw. Aiees to bo addressed in the long tern
i>y ^ BFR ioitiadvc isdudo whaha we »bo«ld seek a taw cbtnga to rq>lace oitizeosb^ ccrtificatea with
roao otis donimeiagion. aod reduction of cycle time by eliminating Amctions that do not add vahie to
eai t^ork prodita.
These reooEomeodations represaot a (tandMncDtal change in Ae way we go about the busiocst of
aAturalizatioa. To assist whh the planning decisions of this project,' please revkw tin oumnsiy report
jqd 3hM6 your ooaHneatj.
Ec-£nstnccring Impkmenmion Ptan
no
^.
Executive $ynQp$fs of "RehSngineering the Naturallietlon Process"
Background
Compelling Cox for
Change
Reoeot evcntt in dnnudally changing the impoitmoo nd
ntgen^- qfiwiniiig ddzenihip. Tlio sdmalnt of tbt gnen end
R^lacemeatpn^ilm, the betoato iatfao inmibarof iadividnta
(Mde digiblo for natunlioKioa bccawo of dw l^aBztfiaa
progmn, tbe puM go of Criifomln't Piupuiiliuii 187, nd llio
(bsft wcl&v rcfban IcgulMkn kk cn^og natanJintigo
applkadoos to tpinl upniudt In iccoitl Bombon. At 1M,4S9
rmipts for the fint six mooihs of FY 95 (throng Match 1993),
Los Aogdu Is e:q)C(lcaclag a 176% Increase over last )niiir.
Rccdpu of nMuniiziKion iqiplicatioin have increased by 141% in
California, 100% in the seven Vsy cities, and 83% Seiviec-wide.'
These iccdpt Icx'els aie vxpeOxA to continue throu^out liic
immigniion debate that is domisatiag the conntr}*. Thev- could
even continue bcx-ond should a le-^ngineored and moie custotaci-
fiicndly process prove as effective as Hotidpatcd.
Rba ki DiBFfri h tht antran KajtOMm
n^gg 4MM tUOt WJNP 1«IM* UMM I4MM
Sevoni>- poRieiit of dm nadon'i recelpta are coming fiom seven
kej- dticj— Los Angeles, San FraadJco, New Yoik Cit>-, Mfanol,
Chicago, Ncwuk sod Houston. The slate of Califemia is deatiy
"ofiFthe scrie" with 40% of the nation's N-400 tecdpts.
Soaicc G22J rq>on ti sf March 1995. ntich compares N-lOO iccdpl* tot the 6nt ah moalhi erFY M (blu
bus) «1lb the Hm sx Donihs ofFY 75 (pink ben).
R*-Engtnoving Implowtntaaon Ptvt "
Ill
Taking Action
'?.
riUBMW>|t« •( Mr«H»4rM« lUal^ RMdtnd In Kay QMi
Statistics for the number of backloggcd CtKodcd") appliodoni
are equally bleak. Oon igain, CtUibraia is » key tn^ct tvith 49V<
of the nation's peod«d cues. Up-to-ilatc estimascs for the size of
the backlog in the Los Angles Distiia Of!Ioc lange fh>m 100,000
to 200,000. Seivlce-nlde there b a backlog of tieazly 1,000,000
esses.
The tmuializadon costomer is diivctly impscted b^' the
tTcmcndous backlog. Aoooiding to recent AILA statistics, it can
take up to 27 months on averase to acquiic dtiacnship in San
Diesel^ According to the same icpoit, it takes an average of 12<
15 months to get an applicant tbtough the process in Los Angeles,
San Francisco, and Miami.
In response to this crisis, the Comcnissioner has declared this re-
engineering initiative as a top prioritx*, with the objective being to
eliminate the backlogs and reduce the overall INS c}-clo time
dramatically. The Commissioner and her £.-uicut>ve leaders
realize that this crisis cannot be mot iritfa eonventioTul solutions
such as thro\\ing mote people at the problem. Thereibte, the)'
commissioned a team to eompletoly rc-enginecr the entire
naturalization process — fitm top to bonom.
AILA -Rspcn Cat4 m (MS AdjuiUnaons.'* Match I99S.
R»-engineering tmptomtniaUoo Plan
112
f.
Pcdedgntnf the
JifitHrentntUm
PtVCfSI
Explorir,g
PaiincrtMp Options
vith Faralld Focus
Groups
On April 1, in npid loqxxisc to die CaroniluiaBcr'i icqucst, tfac
WigwiiUaBipn lU-EngiaeoilnB Team commcDOPd « 30^- "fitn
osck" initiirtive. Jbc team iaehidod iqimeBtadaa ftnn tte New
Yoik, Nowadc, Lot Aagokai, Kfiaml, Bahiinore, Haaahiln, md
CtiJc*ao Ditfiict Offlow; tbs Cidifbmi« aad NduBika St nice
Caom; 0D9 of tt« naiaBal ndoDs; md HQ (PnbUe AfUn,
EiTBnihiitiooi^ nd IRM). To cusuic that die cSbit ftned pooplc '
to look fi» oQo^iyAtkxBal (oh4kia» aad to iMiik "to of tfao bwi;*
pnifualomlf fiom PRC, Inc. Korp ooati?ctcd to piovido
ptofbndaod cnpc{tiic. Tho tcan ym frcUiMBd by Budncii
Fniccu Re-£(a{iaccdns nd Cbaige MmBOoutfcaqati fion
PRC Wbbm foiir wetiu' tiiH), tliD gnnip ognipkled lltt fcOon^
octivitiot:
^ Idsatifiod dio "^ It" oatnialLnidan ptooctt. iodufins
pcribmuDCQ incantes;
■ •> AMCStod 4u: cnnan prooeu mi cmnrnt cjBvinxoincnt
(pcopio, tocboolog)-, ftcQitics, paMonuToeodsX
•» BiafautpnnedaloQgtcnntifiionofnaoinlizxtion;
n Bnnmotined abort loan rquicklutsliKtioiuthiii
provide imniodiatc bowfit; md
f DcSoed aa Inplcmaitician Plm to txanahico fiom tho
cuiiuil csviiootDcnt towards piDgreinvc impiovemcou
md Hia uldmato vldon.
Tltc iqtAnpble icnhi of die ftiur net^ efibn i>n M impoitut;
tbc)' indnde:
•> Providkig Icadctlhqi tad muuiuuluai;
» Acibicving bny-in torn n Mghly nipmanadvc en»s>
iccdon of INS icpitscalatives fixnn the field, resioiis, aod
HQ;
" TtMufoiming tlio way INS employoci look at the
oatoiatizstioQ misiiioii aod die way INS conduct* ha
bsainGas;xQd
n Sowins die toods of a ocw INS cultnie.
4
Sitnuh9icout nd istcsratcd widi the cffoits of the BPR Team,
titc INS oonvoaed a taam to look at tfao potd^ &r dnBaadcally
incrcadsg oomnndiity ioTolTCRicnt in die iWlwaHrrtoa piooou.
Tliia t9«D la lod by a ii;iipaeiit«ive fiom dM HQ PoU^ and
pJanuDs oiBanlzadoa. OnsovcndoocNiaaaifaoCoinmiuioacr
panicipitodiotiiitdStn. UtoMmviattedkeyooBiiiiuDitiMto
wodc widi Sorvlen FiDvider OQsniztfiaoi (o«, CBOn, NOOa,
vobntao' aiBaoiiP^tkDa, Conunimhy ooUcso) to idcotii^'
capadt}-, tc$nIatoi>', SnfQcial, legal, and niaiioQ^p itcaet diat
Qood to bo additaaod. Tbc icsnhi have bean imenvovca into tin
Rc-£pgi]ioaioB teara'i wotk to prodom a mon o ortiprrhm »i>'e
IjosprcmaitadoQ Plan.
Re-engirmofing Impicmcmation Pm
113
PlaQnosIs
i 0p management
commitment h very
ztrong and very
visible
A value system based
on customer
r.ittitfaaloa Is not
pracndj bnUt tr,to
aaiuralivnion tvorA
practices
In the comic of ssiesdag tfao cuiiBtt envinmncm, the
NitturaUzadon Rc-EoginceiiflO tctra looked objfldivtJy mi
naiUstically st tbc emmcMst of INS tam9sa.taA, bdiavion
r>i4 vRincs. *m ndbusv, OM of todpoloey, inUI tmsiacss ^^
lladls ^Kssmcait td^ 10 Moolii^'fbc cnWon 9^
oistTdtfain the INS culture. Tlw cmUcti will bo wefid Icvcn
tiM can bg oploitod to CDtuit ilat fht impkmcawioa pisoo
nuaniBiai momciitttni, guwiitos cnBtt oa gat, Rid ylcMs snoocss.
11k banicTj «c kc)' to oadantndiag tbe Und* of iKon thA will
tavciobodMihwftfadMiBglfagliiiplnincntationpiMap. Anotbor
ptapoMofnctainaiaeainQatiito'&oBiotdity.'' Itbiiivonsm
duff cvciyaacftake nook of tbo jncssat ctilinraf mut cuvhowncaail
bPseUne, ao tbA ii n| >ro vcmciai cm be mcaaoacd objoodvdy.
Tlic foOoning anesimcnt ia ofEeivd b>- PRC to provide n
objective^ ndftroal viciv of die INS [utunUadoD] cultnie lod
alvuunmcat. It is intended to be ucd in a poifd-rc manncT — as •
pbtfbnn upon Tvfaidi improvcmcats can be cucfiilly targeted and
caicfuU)- pinned. While coe can aiwaya find enceptionfl to ray
generalized fUtcmeat, wc. do ace acme pjwnUing trends:
1 ) Top managcmcat commhincnt is vcij stroofi rad vciy visible.
Iba Commissioner is lelcntlesa and outspoken in her
oominitiiicnt to impravlag INS senriees and nuning dignit}'
sad fiiimcss for ayil Atture oitiseot. This is (ibsolutely critieal
fi>r success of the tC'CDg^cciiDs dSbtt
Tho Assod^ic Conunissioocr of Ennniiiations, his q>ccial
assistant, and the hhitur^fcnitian Bimch Chief are excellent
choices to can)- this biiti(Kive forewd, baaed on iboir strong
Icaderriiip Abilities. As best t^v can tell, INS has good Uaion
Icadcnhip, and Union icpirscntadvcs arc ioteicstcd in
paftneiing v^itfa INS to bring about positive efatoges: The
Union pro\ided a vcrj- taaowlcdgeftble teprasentative to
participate on the Xetsa .
2) . A value ftystan based on castoma ssds&ctioa is not prescndy
built into aamnllxatiaa work practices. Much like other
govcmmcct agcadet, the INS hns mora of s> Internal than
cxtcisiil focus. Intomal INS omploycta — ratbcrdunthe
immignnt appUeaal — are often viewed as the costomer.
Rt-englntaring (mplomanlaiion PUm
114
^.
There It a
tirmcndom
Hateppei
cpponunity to
ktvoh-a out$Ufc
partncrz
The nanraliiofion
procai Is based on
outdated tyork
pniiiccsr—
fragmented tasks,
GGccJs/tv kend-e^s
and f Kor£3,
dupRcete data cnnj,
dupBeeu cheching,
ciging tcdtnalogy
PeifomuDcc ifipRdnls, rcivaniU, casccr IwUca, aid
wpik^np nractnea ate pmcntly lotcnMOy (boned to
survive Ui the DidhiaDal forcnnncait wotlqdMe. Ibey fttc not
dongopd to tcwatd tboio ^ pitf cnitoBicr iriii&ctloa abov«
9U eljff:; nor ne ifaey (ieripiAl to nrmd imiovcika asd
cScaiTOUs. FiDosu poibinisace ai«iif(ucs MC not deiigmd
fiQmtfacaKtanKr'iTicHpoifit 'PorcEompIfl,tl>eINS
raej<uR7 Ac nmnber of i}ip]icadaDi diey proocn, but docs
not bAve KCBaacmettDBi of hiw long m qiplieot vrtHi
stre STTon in. -
INS petmnnei htvo ya to feUy tip co uuuunl t y roto B foa to
pUy » moc Ktive role in the natPrtlbation proows. INS
pcTTcnsd often tct Scmco Pnmdcn m too d c m« ndh)B , nod
M advettaiici bistead of m ooUcagMfi vrbo than aoommon
309I gf serving the isunignmt cw:tamor. Distinctions twt^vcn
cRporiqa<93, high-ijiuUty Service Providcn and cxp]oit«tiv«
"itmni$riajcin consuhants" arc nrdy made..
Tbe INS docs txx provide nftnoKtioa to ^vpUcmts or
conuDwit}' biued oisaoixslQos in ft thnel}- and ntcfol way.
"Wliilc A lew Disnict DiiEOon and INS sMBfhsvc developed
cfEcoive TVQiking rdxlio&sh^ ^vith certain Sciviec Providcn,
there is ixtiie ovcnU guidaoce or loadcnhip in this ana, nod
not much uodcrstzadn^ of the stntegic benefits of huildbig
allIanPC9.
The Dxtuializaitian pTPoess it baaed on outdated woik
practices. Dtuisg tb« 1930^8 Frodcrick Taylor pnsmotsd the
uacmbly line approach to expedite mass maanftctiTting. Ihis
ic^ultcd in dcq)ly fngmeotcd taudcs where each "station"
specializes in some sdniita aspect of the ovcnll tack. We
obscrvod the smoc t)^^ of task Sr»$pnaitstion at die INS
Pii^ct QSecs and Servioe Cootjns. 'WhUs this high degree
of Job spcriaH prion |uavidcd ohnous benefits for
m mju J]»amotilnfec 1930'a, ^ktc are sevcrd disadvantages to
Inlying this o^pnmeh to a scrviv^-orleittc^ptoecn inch as
fie-Sngln»»r1ng fmplemaate(ion Plan
115
^.
A 78-min 14 u process
h (ak'tng 12-15
months elapsed time
Pint, 8od mon impaiUat, is tb9lnhcTcnt impact on the
cujtDmcr. No individinl onployee is icipaiuible for cniuiing
castomcr satif£)Ction in tfaii model. Our revie^^- of INS
Cuftomcr Sfsiis&ction Snvoy rcsnlts indicated a ttigh
psrccmbigc ofcustoncn itIiobg maia conqilalnt ts tbal Acir
Tppiintion becgncx lost in the cystein md oo one knows
r^cxcbis. Fnnbajnato, h tvkes in InoRUmts fimonnl of
tiincto''i;ctbbcj;Jnlioc.'' Onr team fv»9 not ^le to find
«vidaio« tbflt 3U f^iusttknuvic tntckod tmfivhcre witlilD ti>c
INS to mrice suie that ^b«y /Bc cvcntuaDy piQocsscd and
accounted for.
Ihn aocond disadvantage ii^lbA higjbly flugmcmorf and
WHipaiti A m oiUaed usics la«d to tU^ mnberof hand-ofb
(when woiii ItTJlMsicd fnasa ono individaal to mother) and
queues (^cic Kodc !i pilcfi up vraitiiig for somcono to
prpctss it). Wc learned of instmces whcic applications are
placed in'mall cntes that are moved as many as 10 times
bdbrr tiidbr processing is eon^letcd.
Aging icchnolog}- preehules many of the cfiSdcncics that
modem ixy businesses havo latcco advuntage of for the last 10
ycNi. The natiirali?wioa.prpcc« i» ttill vciy pqjcp-intqisivc,
?iith little axitonuEtcd cent detection and collection to taloe the
place of dnpliciite and ttipUcate choddng of infcnnfliaa.
Mnhiplc, non-integiBtcd l^cacy systems require duplicate
caa>- of the sane infoimaiion (c.g., CtAIMS; WXCS, CIS,
RAFACS. FBI jrad Militar)- infmrnation reqwst).
A 78-miQutc process is taklnfi io long sis 12-15 months
elnpscd time. Ovrtcam^ddcduptbccjclctimc&r
pcifonning each of the steps of the naturalization process. It
is sianling to rcaliic that the actwd processing time (exclusive
of the 60 da>' wait fijr FBI responses and the 45 day "due
dLiligenw" period for A-filc s<^ai^<») is l^n tbsn two hours.
As dmnatjc m tins may soimd, the INS cannot oontinae to
conduct busneu this way if they are to keep tip vntfa the
projected demand.
D:Mliorthc78-ffllaotce>cleliiD9 9npn7l4«din«wnf«Rcstilkd'lle«l1iia30]Hv«; Fj o - B ag hirn 1n| tlie
HatunilizxtionProc«*t,''<iitodMa>'l995. C>-ele timet ciudha«dsiMiac]adQtb«fi<MR}-«ili(btrBeoidtbcsks
^fl»4S^*daedUl|aiea'' period. Tl>cfataiefifawtqrdettocifaiio Mn « BU < ACTUAL pwcaMhit
iloo-HlMidaro. itin' (b not todiidB wsaiiog itaiet in qaoet or lnDd>off tbaes.
Rti-Engheifrine ImplemonlaUon Plen
116
^.
Eqp/c/ca in the
nnivrfor diangc
;h& Year ZQQQ
A New fyradlsm
6) Ibc cmplqjreei tfait K« wcic cspoacd to in tlw fleM Bid at HQ
meager for duogc. This wm voy mudi ia evidence ai tho
RcEagnccdng Toms coDdncted ahc visit* to vroik vdth staff
ftom tbc ILA Piltrict OflSct and CwUfiwnia Swvica Ccatci.
SiznUsly (dndng Focm Grotqi viiitt) Sovioe Piovideii Id >
LA, Chicago, and New YoA expressed « stroqg imeicat in
expanding Aeir nlo in tbo nstmalixadon piDcwt. Tmm
oi^aain^ons hxn poosdenblo tu^mtw t9 OSS'.
Tbo R&-)9aie^tteciiQg trnn conducted odcnoive IniiAStoiming''
FCfsioDS to c::sploio (seativo sod innovadve ideas &r dmudeaUy -
Jlnpraving Ac way tin IMS oonducta its business. Tlie piojcct
v=mts' vitdon of oaBtnliaRlcia turns today's pmdigin iosidc*
out— tlie digoity of Ibe q)pUc«at ttUI bo fbioinost in the minds of
tiaosc Vfho assist than vA6i tin nstnializsdon proocu.
inbc ]c3»] i;t«sdjBds for nStanlizsdon nill be maintained, btd tiic
opcmional pn>c«4pies TvlU be ttnis^d to provide customer-
oriented, timely, ooiulstcnt, nd piedictable sciviec. AppUcmts
n-ill be given dioices about when and itow ibey wish to get help
oomplcting tlidr finms, wtxa and how they wish to bo swon-io,
:nd TActl>cr or not they wish to hftve a foroial ceitiiBlccto of
ciozcashlp.
All qjplieaats will continue to be QEsmiocd, however the number
of cpplicrats ocTmlnod in a onc'on'oac intcrriow will decrease
dmnntictJly. Individuals who have been formally odueated in diis
eounto' (high siJiool or collqgc) nill not be subjected to English
rad Civics tests. Loog'StBadiog imeipictsdona of eli^ilit)' iavs
and icgulatip&s viiU bc reviewed to support the ro<nglnoeiing
initiative, which is focused upon meedng the demands of tods^v-'s
eligible custoincn.
Mon impoitaatly, the c)'clc time Araf submission (to the INS) to
approval \^iU be reduced to "same day scrvioe" for 80% of the
;^>plicKitB.
Re-&glnt«Hng Imfilamenudon Plitn
117
/O
U.S. Department of Justice
Immicntian tad Natunlization Service
•IMzeOB
Mr. Sobezt Diegdman
DiiHitQT, Jostios Pwfiiiiium-* Keview
U.S. Dqwmuient of Jnffirn
12di nd Penns^vuk Ave., N.W.
Wishingtnq. D.C 2QS30
Dear Mr. Diegdmin:
The yvupoitf of thU lettg is to legoat yoar i Mldtwr m ca ti hTiiihi ns a. cnneat
Tmiiiiftiitionaad Natmafiadfoa Sexvice iuULtfivo-diB le-en^UBering of the Difiirallratioo
process— as a Seisveotioa Tjlm i ihny .
VafnnTrrfifwi^ tliB last ttcp an afioi tabet tDwizds aeqainiie U.S. litirmtfilp , is
cxudal oot colj to the in£vidaal ^ibo weda ft, bat also to tbe inteciJty of oar NadoxL
reoidcntf g'*^ M q g w i i ii« T i f t i rm ji i( j»rfiii « f»»«t |]|j|t tf*** Secvioo will ivaily dodUe the
nmnber of appHcarinm leoeived tfus fiscal jax (to 900.000) and ^riR xeoezve 800,000
q^Iicatiau per year ia eadi of the nest two fisol yens.
As yoo are aware. & team of 20 IcnoidedgcablB, ea^Kdeooed INS pennnnel from field
ofBces, Regiooal Offices aad Hodqaaiten met recently fiv 4 weda to ^«>i " i " ^ tbe Service's
Qstszai322tion irrpcffmuj ^ p^ m too to oottom. After caxcfiil anal vats ok cbi^q oonipooe^x ot
the process, tbe team presented a-mnnber of innovativiB ideas £or iui^auvcoieat.
I woold IDcD to ^ipiaadi tbesB zecommoidatiaQS ia tbD context of a Keisveatiaa Lib.
The effort win fitttoocor at aboot six sites ow tbe ival 12-18 months, eaqiandhtg if these
efibits prove nooessfoL At tJKse sites, INS will set new nistomer riandndi for service and
present a nev, costaoer-onentBd way of piuu e uin g natnoBzation qiplications. A lab
jfH>F ai> well-soitBd fiir tins Jond of *fl'*n'i it*
118
1^ Bobett Dkgdinia
Af «e awiit qiprovd lo — '■»'^**' the unnaUzuiaa tab, we axe iatSag a dttztv,
rnniHrrmy oBTie— i ii MM i IjiMrf i l| i^ tut iimnJw£ «■* « Iiriw— pl^«| Hie daiter aad tom
inriHnruiilp cbouIdbB rady iKttsiiBBS Kvenldi^s.
TaWCyOQ BOX JOOf lUlllUIUU IB tiu miBEL
Siaoecdy
^^^^^t^ JU^^i^^U^-f^
Owiniitiii'iiipx
119
;),
HAstnukLzzftrzcar mrbtzmo
AnSDST 2, 1995
XttmnAMM
Don Crocettl (HQBZM)
Mike Aytes (HQADN)
Tom Cook (HQADN)
Dave Rosenberg (HQOPP)
Immediate follow-uiff flnf^"" ^^^m^
1. Keinvencion lab status.
check on status with DOJ amd try to facilitate
primarily due to facilities, contracting and
procurement issues that warrant Ismediate exemption to
creating policies, regulations etc.
2. Inter-program team.
Identify representatives from applicable programs.
3. Backlog plan worksheet.
Prepare to help identify Jcey items necessary for
development of backlog plans for each key city.
4. Backlog Project site managers.
Identify managers %d.ch needed skills and experience to
be detailed to each key city to coordinate project.
5. Project Manager.
Prepare memo designating Dave Rosenberg as the
Naturalization Re- Engineering Project Coordinator,
reporting to Don.
Have Caamiasioner announce such at Key Cities
Conference.
6. Backlog Plan^
Finalize, to include getting all data necessary to
identify order of key city iB^lementation and costs
associated therewith.
120
/I.
7. External personnel to support backlog project.
Identify means in which to determine who outside
support will consist of, i.e»v re-hired annuitant,
temporary or term, new hires, and/or personnel detailed
from other offices/regions.
Intermediate data entry. Resolve contract security
clearance problem.
Clarify this process amd get with HQIRM to determine
whether there is any other alternative as this
intermediate process requires ongoing oversight of
permament enqployees (labor intensive and costly) .
9. NACS.
Pursue update from HQIRM. Field dislikes 2 -month
scheduling limitations and printing problems.
10. Direct Mail.
Determine schedule and site of eaqpansion. Try to
support backlog initiative for LOS, CHI, MIA and NYC.
Cost out addition of NYC.
11. Co-op Agreement.
Follow-up with HQCOU' to determine if DOJ is now
supporting so that we can maJce a%rard ASAP. Also, get
with HQOCR amd HQOPA regarding announcement of such
awau:d and how we will deal with inquiries, educate
Congress, etc.
12. Training.
Develop training plam aimed at providing on-site
training.
13. Rosenberg Contract.
Get with Sandra Kopchik to find out %rtiat needs to be
"gone to eactena David 's contract for co ordination of
Natx. project . ~
NOTIt Attendees amd inter-program team will meet weeUy
throughout re-engineering initiative.
[Prepared by L.D. Crocetti, Jr. (HQBXM)
121
Memorandum
SEP 181995
Subject
Yow Responses: Bxecutive Synopsis,
RC'Engiiieering the Naturalization Process
DCM
To Piom
BxecutiTe As50cUt« Commissioner OfSce of the
for Reld Operations Commissioner
Regional Directors
District DirectoTB
Service Center Directors
Ali of you have been addressing OTerwhelming increases in naturaliaatioii
applications for at least the .past nine months. Ik)r mAny, enormous pending
numbers became a fact of life long before 1995.
Naturalization is a key priority for IN&-both streamlining and better informing
our customers about the process. Aoxtrdlngly, during the Spring, FRC, an
experienced Q^tmagement consvQting firm with particular expertise in business
process re-engiiveering, worked with a cadre of 20 INS staff representing both field
and Headquarters. .During a 6-week period they studied the naturalization process,
focusing on these issues:
' Application processing essentials;
" Customer-friendly approaches;
3 Processing efficiency measures;
" Role of technology;
^ Potential for broader partnerships witti service providers; and
n Other potential long-term reforms, Le., a vision for naturalization processing in
the futiure.
Tlte result of these weeks of intense deliberation is a report entitled Results in
30 Dttys: Rt-Engineaing the Naturalixation Process. Attached Is the Executive
Synopsis.
FleAse review it with yoiu- staffs and provide confunents on the recommendations.
Because of the urgency of our jnwrent caseload, I have directed that the existing
naturalization applications backlog be given the Service's most immediate
attention. A Backlog Management Plan is now being prepared. It will target
iaitially the largest problem spots-Los Angeles, MiainJ, New York, San Francisco,
122
Fags?.
jBxTcudve AssocUbe Commissioner
fcr FieW OpexatiQjna
Rcgioaal Directors
District Directors
Scrfice Center Directors
11.
sad Chicago. We wiU then apply the aanxe stringent effort to all other Districts to
exijTjre that their caseloads arc effldently processed Wherever possible, we wfll
u?c validated r&-engiheering tccluilqufes as outlined bi the PRC report to attack
the caseload.
My e-xpectatlcn is that over the next srvexal vears we will hone and sbreaxnlina
sybstantiaUy owr naturalizatton effort^. With the help of new technology and more
Sophia 'dca ted management techniques, we will Improve oux respomo to our
grcwing dtizsnshlp-seeking customer ba$e.
m responding to the Executive Synopsis of Results in 30 Days: Re-Engineermg the
Niituralization Process, please bear In mind that
(1) Tve must all assume ownership over successful re-designing of the
nRturallzadon process; .
(Z) wiiile the recommendations are only that, they offer a basic road map for
change; and
(3) if your staffs have additional ideas for addressing oxir present system, please send
them with your responses.
Responses should be forwarded through Regional Offices and sent to: Don Crocetti,
Associate Commissioner for Examinations. If there are any questions, please call
Tom Cook, Chief, Naturalization Special ProjectB, at 202-616-9007,
Fkase forward responses by Friday, October 6, 1995.
/^Lt^/?^^'*^^^^^^
Doris Meissner
Commissioner
Attachment
123
ill From: Richard R Kellner ac ERO-MlA-002 9/21/9S 1:01PM (2135 bytes: 1 In)
-iorlty: Urgenc
i: Thomas Cook ac GroupWlse, David B Rosenberg ac HQ-007, Walter Cadman ac
ERO-MIA-003, Valerie M Blake ac ERO-MZA-003, Blaine D Watson ac ERO-MIA-001,
Mary Ellen Blwood ac GroupWlse, Alice J Smlch ac HQ-002, Lanl A Cafflllll ac
ERO-002, Jeanne M Ray ac ERO-002, Louis Crocecci ac GroupWlse
aces
Message ConcenCs
>xt item 1: TexC_l
ERO-U02, Jeanne n luiy ai; luiu-uu^, ijouib ^.z^ocetti. ai. ut^ou^nxaB 1^9
ibject: Naturalization Certificates /^,
Message Concents -,./. tji . .
I jusc goc off Che phone wich Trident St. Clair, a m2mager wich UKICOR
(PH: 606 - 255,3810) in Lexlngcon, Ky. and generally Inquired abouc
UNICOR preparing nacuralizacion cerclficaces. She appeared Co be .very
interesced, and stated that she would pass Che inquiry on Co UNICOR
headquarcers . My general is^ression was Chac chey would be eager Co
do Che wor)c - she even mencioned Chac Chey had cospleced previous wor)c
for INS (locacor cards) .
If we wanted to do this, I can see two pocenciaXly problem areas. The
firsc would be how Co do ic. AC the present tine Che certificates are
prepared via the NACS system, and some people might not be comfortable
with a direct data link to a federal prison. If that was a problem,
possibly Che data could be compiled on disc and then forwarded to
chem.
Secondly, and p'-">?flbly jfnrm difflculc, would be the piibllc relatione
aspecc ot_havlng prlaong^ prcvliiffing nArurailgyl^lni^ ^erclf IcaCea- >5^
."sc. L'xair~wajited us to be aware Chat some o f her eigalo yees are illegal
aliens . Nevertheless, I see noChing is^osslble' about this situation,
amd believe that we should ImmediaCely follow-up on this possibilicy.
Alice/Dave - Possibly you could chec]c wich che Commissioner emd see if
she has any problem with this idea. If not, we need to do it ASAP.
M.
124
C32] From: Walter D Cadman at ERO-MIA'Q03 H/1S/9S 4:08PM (3668 bytes: 1 In)
Priority: Urgent
To: HQEXM USA.HQEXM USA POST OFFICE l:LDCROCET aC GroupWise
Raceipc Requested
cc- Lani A Camilli at ERO-002, Carol D Chasse at ERO-002, Jeffrey M Weber at
HQ-004, HQEXM USA.HQEXM OSA POST OFFICE l:AJQaARAN at GroupWise,
HQEXM OSA. HQEXM OSA POST OFFICE liDEROSENB at GroupWise,
HQEXM USA. HQEXM OSA POST OFFICE IrKRFRENCH at GroupWise,
HQEXM USA.HQEXM OSA POST OFFICE IrMLAYTES at GroupWise,
HQEXM OSA. HQEXM USA POST OFFICE 1:TEC00K at GroupWise, Valerie M BlaJce,
Richard R Kellner at ERO-MIA-002,' William Ring
Subject: Re: Furlough* - Citizenship OSA -Reply
Message Contents
Too late! We had wanted to do exactly as you suggest: cross-code their
paychecks out of the Exams fee account, but we were advised by Lani yesterday
that the official word from HQ was "no go* with regard to the enforcement
detailees to Miami's Citizenship U.S.A. We were given the latitude to call them
in and advise them, either yesterday afternoon or first thing this morning. By
Che time we had gotten the word, they were mostly gone because our workday
begins early here. So, they were called in first thing today, emd turned around
to their hotels to pack and depart.
The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that we also had enforcement
officers from the district detailed into natz (immigration agents and special
agents) . , Tho tas were furl ouqhed as nonessential, and the spec ial agents w ere
3ut back to street duty consistent with the definition of~essential, that came
5utl-Of the~aep«r tment , with re gard to protecting life and property and_enforcing
:he law.
■j»»HT j«« to aay. we're n ow screw ed i n teziu of the stacks of interview schedules
ve had set out with them in mind. I don 't know how .w«. niil keep"up. . - the
likeli&ed-i*^ E'i4C_we_will put. other _nAO« onto. citizeaghiE^^and^Iet" their own,
asuai work (e.g., 245s) suffe r.
R«ply Separator
Subject: Furloughs - CitizensEip OSA -Reply
Author: HQEXM USA.HQEXM OSA POST OFFICE 1:LDCR0CET at GroupWise
Date: Xl/lS/95 10:19 AM
Date: 11/15/1995 10:19 am (Wednesday)
From: Louis Crocetti
To: HQEXM CCQATB. 'Valerie M Blake at ERO-MIA-003'
CC: CGMAIL.ERO-MIX-OOB.Cadman Halter D, AJQOARAM, KRFREHCB,
CCMXXL.BQ-004. Weber Jeffrey M, OEROSEHB, MLAYTES, TECOOK,
CC3aaL.ERO-002.Chsss« Carol 0, CCMAIL.ERO-003. Camilli
Lani A
Subject: Furloughs - Citizenship USA -Reply
/alerie-Exams fee funded positions, ars of course, exempt the furlough,
others, such as SAs, ars not. David just informed me that there are s
lumber of SAs detailed to Citizenship USA and they may have to be
returned to their offices to be furloughed. I instructed David to get
yith
Jeff Weber (HQBOD) about ths possiblity of charging SAs to the Exams
?ee Accoxint. I fail to see how this wouldn't b« legltimsts given ths
fact it is the typ« of work they are doing. If this is a go, w« sio^ly
125
Auchor: Danial P May at BQ-00)
Data: 3/4/»« «:3» PM
Priority: Neraal
TO: Patra M Hlllar at BQSDC
TO: Alan Sbalton at BQBUC
Subjact: Ra(2] : Belp a* gat Hatz raonay for Cltzaaahip USA
........ .. .... . Maaaaga Contanta
n
Our laat aatiraataa wara $3,509 (inelddlng tha JCOOK .x41 $$ apant lata
9S) . Thay'va baan repaatadly aharad «/ Dava F and MaryBllan Ellwood.
I'va avan approachad Larry Ball for aooia H for CDSA. I hava a
docunant whara Chrla Sala 8/18/95 aaya 'funding for much of thla
(CUSA) la authorlzad for Fy96. Additional funding will ba included in
your 199C axaraa budgat propoaal'. Tha 13/95 'program inplementation
plan' talka about 'Porvlda ADP and othar aupporting reaourcea to
■itaa' containing an aaaunptlon'Punda will ba available from
appropriate aourcea to proceedw/ equip, infra, and inatall servicea*
I can't find anything that promlaea... only words like 'much' and
'appropriate'. Dava told ma back in Dec that there waa nearly $5H in
'the' budget for buildout, ADP, suppliea, etc. Leta juat atop til we
get some reimburaament . That'll ga t aooaone'a attn.
DAM
Reply Separator
Subjact: Re: Help me get Natz money for Citzenahlp USA
Author: Alan Shalton at BQBUC
:ate: 3/4/9C S:SS PM
DO NOT FORWARD
Am I dreaming again? Ware you in tha room when she told me there waa
a reprogranning of, I thought, $3.7 H that we could tap? Anyway don't
stop putting together the figurea. Let me )a>ow when you are cloae and
I will go see Jeff Weber.
I keep getting the feeling that if anybody tails ma anything, I should
aaauma it'a a joke or worse I
Forward Header
Subjact: Re: Help me gat Natz money for Citzanshlp USA
\uthor: Petra M Millar at HQBDC
3ate: 3/4/9C 5:37 SW
Fernanda aaya tha only monev oof aibly a ^mllabla for repayment of tha
m oney we spent on nnj im^^ ig pax sltar jr-caw am uu tJf CUBCinaUic v
"tunda or leftover monay mm tha yr wla3S~a u » u. . . . ~
Poxvaxd Haadar
subject: Re: Help ma gat Hats mooay for Cltsaaahip USA
41-503 97-5
126
rreai Thomas Cook
To I CMQOZKBY, JDRASMOS
Daeai 11/16/9S 10:24affl
Subjaett FZNOBItPItXNT CBBCXS -Reply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I JUST TALKED TO DEBBIB FARMER OP RECORDS HBO BROUGHT DOWN THREE BOXES
(PROBABLY 4000 RECORDS) OP FBI KAMB* CHECKS. SHE CAME TO ME AS THE CLOSEST
THING WE SEQf TO HAVE TO A PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR FBI RECORD CHECKS (WHICH I
AM NOT) .
IT TURNS OUT THAT THE FBI REPONSES TO RECORD CHECKS HAVE BEEN GOING TO TWO
ADDRESSES. ONE IS C/O STELLA JARINA WHO PROMPTLY ROUTES THEM TO RENEE
DESKA20R. RENEE SORTS AND SENDS THE -HITS' TO THE APPROPRIATE OFFI CE WHERE. IT
IS HOPED, THEY ARRIV E IN TIME TO BE OP USE THE THE DAOT '
■ngSECOND ADDRESS IS 'WORK STATION. R M 5Q3T. WHICH I S RECORDS. DEBBIE
BELIEVES, AS OF THIS MOMENT. THAT FOR THE LAST 8-10 YEARS THEY HAVE BEEN
IMMEDIAT ELY BURNED . THISJg M»S THAT WR ARE ESSENTIALLY DESTROYING THE HITS ON
'212 P F OTB~MAMg'' ail . CXs~7AfA COST OP-PR^UVBLY $1,000.000 PER YEAR) AND
NATURALIZING AN ASSORTMENT OF SCUM.
I SUGGESTED TO DEBBIE THAT SHE SHOULD BRING THE ISSUE TO YOU (TOM) . SHE IS
DRAFTING A REPORT FOR ADELE.
I EXCEEDED MY AUTHORITY AND CONTACTED THE FBI TO SEE IP I COULD TRACK THE
SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM AND SUGGEST A SOLUTION. I FOUND THE PERSON BUT <»M'T GET
THROUGH YET. SHE MAY BE FURLOUSHSD. I'LL KEEP TRYING.
I REALLY THINK THAT THE WHOLE PINOERPRINT/NAMB CHECK STRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE
LOOKED AT. THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL INTEGRITX TO OUR PROCESS PLUS THESE
GLITCHES KEEP POPPINQ UP.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Jac)c
L«t m* Icnow i£ th«r« la any problm getting th« responaes sent to on* addrcaa.
That ia th« firat laau*.
Tha aacond laau* la par our eonvarsatian If you would follow up with tha FBI
to aa« If thay will aort and ottil to 00* a tha naoM ehaek raaponaaa aa thay do
tha fingaxpriat raapoasas.
David/Mary Bllaa. FYZ
Don/Mika - \9data - Z haw ee;ad you bacauaa at tba last OZO "fix it" maatiag
Alax iadieatad IMlUtUT ia anauring that hita getting to tha raeord b*
addraaaad. Z aa prapariag a raapoaaa to Id Hurptay en tha OZO iaaua.
Toa
cct LDciociT, tojccaa, xmotwn, vaxutoao, umdrpht
127
MEMO
TO: Famanda Voxmg
ni: Mlka Aytas
SOB: Xaquasc a awaap o£ iOCS co allow aehadullng of certain eaaaa
)lc.
Tha Dicact Mall o£ HrMQ appllcacloaa Co ■arvlea caacara la tha jurladlctloaa of Loa
Aagalaa, Naw York, -Chicago and Miami bagan on Fabruary 1, l»»€. Tha applieationa pandlng
daca antry ac chaaa diatrlcta wara ralocatad to tha raapactlva larvlca eantara. Tha
dlatriet offiea waa inatm ctadjo atrip tha FD-asi fingarprinc carda from tha applieationa
and forward chaaj:o^Cha~cffitgfI' for" "procaaaing. Policy inatructiona and standard '
oparacing' procaduraa wara providad to .tha diacrict offieaa and sarvlca eantara, and
training on tha data entry of 11-400 'a into tha autooatad syatam waa providad to tha ^
eantara .
A quality r aviaw of tha transition racantl y diac loaad that tha aarvica eantara wara not
an^ASing.a 'sanc to tha FBI* syatan notification indicating tha FD-2St carda ' had'baan
t ant to t ha FB I in part ^ua^ to tha local offica_aubaaaaion of car da to tha FBI, and
partly duate tha initial^ cenfua ion of ioplaiiianting a naw precaaa. A a aoon aa t hia waa
diacovered, tha eantara initia ted t raining and conducted audita to anaura all carda had
been~f orwarda^ to tha FiT I The caaaload included new eaaaa received and stripped ac the
eentari"and~6ldar eaaaa that had been atripped aC tha diatrieta and forwarded to the
eentera. Tha canter diraetora and diatrict office naturalization managers have affirmed
that all eaaaa received ac the cencera or sanc to the eentera from tha districts were
stripped and tha carda forwarded co the FBI prior to data antry. T he critical problem a t
hand ia ehae thea a eaaaa cannot be ac hedul ed f or intervlew^ue to che adic_feacura which
preel ua»« *iigibilicy for ineerview jf' cSa-ayaceBidoea not acknowledge chatnth«_J"
'fingarprinc card waa aend Co the FBI. Abaanc chia ayacam update to cerracc tha alcuation,
w« w4Uia &AV4 Co manually^update approximately 84,000 record*.
To permit cheaa eaaaa co ba acheduled for interview ac tha diatriee officea BQIRM is
requeaCad co run a ayacam sweep and updaea che subjecc flag co 'yea* on all t(-400
applieaciona encered inco MACS from tha four direct mail sitae starting February 3, 1.99C,
where the system notification Indicataa that Che FO-2S8 was received buc noc updated chac
tha card waa aenc co che FBI. To ensure che processing sCandarda are maincained ic is
requeaced chat a appropriaca aaayle of eaaaa ba prepared en ca pe a nd chaC che_FBI^be
requeacad co run cha IKS capa againac chair dacabaaa co produce a Use "of"~mae chad cases
r eceived by che FBI co support our pcaition chat che eaaaa have bean forwar ded co che FBI.
IC ia a lso requeaced on. a peat audit baaia Cha t a capa of^ all eaaaa be run againic tha~~~
FBI data baaed and tha eaaaa not matched will ba audited to datermina~~what appropriate
action sho uld ba taken jeejeaaura tha integrity of tha proceaa la maintained.
Thia raqueat ia deemed to ba within acceptable proceaa iatagrity atandarda and is
deaigDatad a priority by PregraaM and Plaid Oparationa aa tha four subject sitae are
^ Hearing a criaia aituatioa regarding eligible easaa to ba scheduled for interview. Thia
'^ results net only ia lost preductlea, but loat productive time of teoverary aovleyaaa and
detailed ataff oa aita to addraaa the naturalization application baeklega.
If you hava any quaatloaa plaaaa contact Thooaa Cook, Chief Maturalixatioa Branch, at
514-S014. Thia raquaat ia coaeurrad with by VQ Field Oparationa.
Mika Aytaa
128
%^ J. yf \^.^ The Untied Neighborhood Organization of Chicago
125 S. Hoisted. Suite 203 ■ Chicaso. il. ttOtt6l-Z'll} i3l2i ■i4l-l3liO Fax lSI2) 4-il-HVo
President Bill Clinton
The White House
Washington D.C.
October 27, 1994
Dear President Clinton,
Thank you for your recent dinner invitation. I enjoyed talking with you. Bill Daley and
Harold Ickes about the tremendous opportunity that natxiralization represents.
Following up on our conversation, I have enclosed a sunimary that reiterates the several
points we discussed over the course of that evening.
The number of legal permanent residents that become eligible for citizenship over the
next two years has the potential to make a large civic impact if those obstacles that hinder
them from applying for citizenship can be overcome. The Chicago Model outlined in the
enclosed document represents an easily replicated solution to this immigration issue.
The graph that I've also enclosed illustrates that the largest number of Amnesty
applicants become eligible to apply in December of 1995. We have one year to streamline
the naturalization process in order to accommodate these potential citizens.
Implementation of a nationwide effort to naturalize permanent residents where they are
most concentrated should begin no later than the first quarter of 1995. The opportuxiity
to balance immigration policy and tackle the issue of naturalization in a proactive
manner should not be overlooked.
Again thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and discuss this issue. Your
interest is greatly appreciated. I look forward to your response.
Daniel S. Sdlis
President /Executive Director
cc Bill Daley
cc Harold Ickes
129
Naturalization Potential in 1995 and beyond
/7.
The Opportanity ^
By 1996 5.5 million legal permanent residents in the United States will be eligible for
U.S. Citizenship. This number represents the largest number of eligible permanent
residents under the tenure of oiw Administration.
Approximately 3.1 million of these people became permanent residents through the
Immigration aiul Reform Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), also known as the Simpson-
MazzoU Law or the Amnesty Law. By their experience with the amnesty process,
which employed a similar testing mechanism and standards as the naturalization
process, these permanent residents need only fulfill the few, final requirements for
citizenship, namely completion of the N-400 application and a final interview. Th e
iargog »^niiqihpr< nf these le f^ al permanent residents reside in a select groupin g 61
" uroarTareas:
• Chicag o
• Nejtiork-City
• L^_^Dgeles
• ^liam i
• Te xas: El Paso, S an Antonio , Houston.
Of the additioiui 2.4 million people who received their permanent residency status
through traditional channels, the majority are required to renew their Alien
Registration Cards before the March deadline set by the INS. The cost and
application to renew these cards are almost equal to the cost and application for
naturalization. In our experience once their fears of the naturalization process are
overcome, these residents forgo renewal and opt for citizenship.
An integrated campaign that targets this predominantly urban population has the
potential to natviralize over a million new citizens.
Naturaltfation is a key issue in regard to the em powprmpnt and stabiliy-ation of the
immigrant pop"i* Hf»n< i»^ thi< rnnnhry 9hifji^ show that naturalized dtizcns are
more apt to act in ways that fenerate positive growth in the economy, increase
political activity, and support overall community development. Over 90% of
^^ ^ I pijyaH riHgpn<| rfg"*-' >« "«h1 | « fr^Mrh higher r ate than US. bom dtizeris .
Their record of increased dvic participation is exemplary. The potential dvic impa ct
of these New AmericarM is gre at, but "thesg people must become dtizens betore tne y
' "Become vQtgra.
Recognizing this potential, UNO has focused its efforts primarily on naturalization,
developing a program strategy aimed at addressing the issues that^limit^ttie rates of
naturalization.
130
The Obsudes
What is keeping these people from becoming citizens?
;7
People are not invited into the process nor is the process inviting. We believe this
situation results from policy drift aiul is not by design. The following obstacles limit
naturalization potential:
• intimidation that stems from a common negative perceptiort of the INS
Previous immigrant groups were assisted by "mediating institutions,"
such as political organizations, unions, dvic organizations, and
churches. A greater collaborative effort existed between the INS and
these institutions, and potential citizens were wooed into the
"Americanization" process. In contemporary times, however, the INS
is seen largely as an enforcement agency and in the experience of these
permanent residents, something to be feared. ConsequenUy few seek
the assistance of the INS, although many desire citizenship.
• administrative delays at INS
In our experience application processing through the INS can take up
to a year. This delay is uimecessary. The current mechaiusm cannot
adequately process the numbers of permanent residents that become
eligible for citizenship each year. The perception of the service arm of
the INS as an enforcement agency is supported by budget allocations
toward naturalization. CurrenUy the INS commits only 10% of its'
annual budget to naturalization. ConsequenUy, those that overcome
fears of the INS and seek citizenship are thwarted at the administrative
level.
The Chicago Model
The Kiidwest Regional Office of the INS, under the direction of Mr. AD. Moyer, has
developed an innovative strategy that challenges these issues.
The current outreach program for naturalization in Chicago has effectively changed
the INS' image in the eyes of many permaiwnt residents. The following points are
key to its success.
• "Linea Abierta," ti\e popular show on the leading Hispanic station
Channel 44, was developed by Mr. Moyer ai\d Ms. Connie Lara to
provide ii\formation, education and depolarization on issues of
naturalization.
131
ly.
• A community-based naturalization process developed in
collaboration with community organizations like UNO, allows
applicants to complete the application process and take their interviews
at a local neighborhood or community institution. This model
replicates the collaborative relationship among mediating institutions
that has previously proven effective in bringing thousands of
immigrants into the citiz^hip process efficiently.
This Chicago Model is important to any policy adjustment concerning
naturalization because it demonstrates the success a partnership between these
mediating ixutitutions and the INS can have. Churches in particular have played a
key role in the success of the Chicago Model. Churches have devoted much time,
energy, and human resources in support of this program. Their involvement
further underscores the level of community interest in naturalizing these large
numbers of permanent residents.
The Model is also significant because it has uncovered new mediating imtitutions,
like banks and other financial institution, who have a keen interest in assisting
new citizens. Fannie Mae, which has pioneered the "New Americans Initiat^e" as
part of its Trillion Dollar Iiutiative, has also demonstrated participatory interest
Finally, the success of this model has spurred the Mayor of Chicago to establish a
municipal Naturalization Commission to facilitate this process as well.
Recommendations
To make these solutioi\s complete and comprehensive, my recommendations are as
follows:
• Increase resources allocated to naturalization, in terms of persoiviel
and updated equipment.
• Replicate the Chicago Model in other central dties. Assist local INS
offices in working witfi local community organizatioru to recreate
networks of mediating institutions. The Industrial Areas Foundation
(lAF) in Los Angeles aiwl Texas already has extensive church networks
in place to carry out this type of campaigiL
• Emphasize the urgency of a nationwide iiaturaiization effort in order
to take advantage of the Alien Registration Card renewal deadline.
Other ideas include:
• Iiutituting electronic application filing, such as the IRS has recendy
implemented.
132
Ciiizensliip I'oltnliel. Barriers and Alliludtt Ainont Laiinot i" Cliieago
-^ QL
LU —
< CO
^
z
DC
LU
LU
N
CL 1-
<o
O
rr
(T
O
-J
LL
<> 1
Z
— 1
o
a.
a.
b < 1
<
T'
O
h-
X
o
LU
_J
X
CD
§o
h-
_J
<
LU
T
LU
1—
CC
z
<
O CO 1
2
h-
z
K
LU
co
n
III
fO
—J
X
<
LU
X i
1
LU
n.
CO
CVJ
CO
liJ
Q.
□
(0
<
CO
a
I LnUrd Seishbcrhood OrfaizatiQii "I Chicaxo (1992)
■lllllllll
TB M9SS2
J "
133
• Changing the exanunation procedure.
• Changing the language requirements.
n.
Several key people are aware of the opportunity that this represents. They include
Commissioner Doris Meissner, A.D. Moyer, Faniue Mae's Jim Johnson, Chicago's
Mayor Richard M. Daley, key members from the lAF, Charmel 44 General Maiuiger
Jos^ Lamas and from UNO, myself.
A meeting with these individuals, either together in a group or separately, to discuss
these suggestions further would prove fruitful. I believe that these policy
adjustments are feasible and worthwhile.
134
i^.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lee Ann Inadomi
OfBce of Cabinet Afibin
FROM: Robert L. Bachjt^
Executive Associate Conunis^ioner, Policy & Planning, INS
DATE: July?. 1995
RE: Letters from the President to Newlv Namralized Citizena
You have asked us for information concerning the possibility of the President writing
letters to newly naturalized citizens. This proposal raises several operational and policy issues
which are discussed briefly below. I understand that discussions on this matter are still in a
preliminary stage, and, accordingly, this memo does^not attempt to explore exhaustively all of the
legal and policy implications such a decision would ;aise.
Current Practice _
o Newly naturalized citizens, in most instances, already receive a letter from President
Clinton addressed 'Dear Fdlow American.* (See copy attached.) These letten have been
handed out to new citizens by INS at naturalization ceremonies around the country for a
number of years, although there is usually a gap when a new administration takes ofiSce
until the new president's letter is signed and distributed to INS ofiBces.
o Upon request, INS also prepares individualized letters from the President to newly
naturalized citizens. These requests are usually forwarded to INS fix>m the White House
Agency Liaison OfSce.
Logistics
In fiscal year 1994, over 500,000 people naturalized, and the number will be closer to
600,000 in fiscal year 1995. Projections for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 continue to rise.
Contacting all of these people would require a substantial investment of resources.
At present, INS does not hive a prognin to generate a master list ofnames and addresses
of newly naturalized dtizena. ^rr""" " **'y ""^ j-*""*^ nfth» itM4n«/4ti«i« ttanrnK-rmA
have their ninw and address captured in an automated system (NACSX wUcfa can b«
accessed both by beadquaiters and field offices. The other 30 percent are not part of an
a utomate d syiteni, and their names and addresses are available only through paper records
in INS field ofBces. Some INS ofiBces where records are automated are experieociag
agoificant time lags between the date of naturalization and the availability ofnames and
addresses.
Potential ProblcaH
o A pioposal fix INS to fiirwiid the Mmes and addresses ofnewly naturalized citiaens to
135
the White House rmes Privicy Act concerns that would require legal review in the
conteact of * specific pla n. INS discontinued providing lists of naturalized d^iyfi n To
" appfopnaie Menftcn ot congress sonie vean ago because of Privacy Act^onem a.
A White House inhiitive on contacting newly naturalized citizens, sep arate from the
natiirallTation ceremony, might be criticized as campaign politic* in antidpfl ^nn nf th»
"1 396 election.
Recommcfldatioa
Co ntinue the current practice of having INS present letters from the President to newly
*nituiralized citizens as part of natiiraliration ceremoni5~
/^.
136
MEMO
ir.
TO: Jo« Cuddifay and Tom Cook
FROM: Btiban Strack
DATE: July 12. 1995
RE: FoOow-UD on White House Request Concerning N« tiir«|iatinn IifflCTI
Since we're all in and out of so ouny meetings, I thought it might be bdpfiil to put these
follow-up questions in writing.
1 . With respect to the individualized leners to newly naturalized citizens that INS
prepares upon request: ^-^ ,,^ .^^^ . ^^ ^^^^ ^ ^,^ .,
/^ ' i"oiM.<: .■c.i"ff%
- are these actually personalized letters signed by the President? (Or, for example, are
they personalized letters from the Commissioner attaching the President's standardized
"Dear Fellow Citizen" letter?) fd'o.-r'^.-.- '-i .^-^ v:\..-vo,v ujro^c. ^cv' '.; ■ v v
- can we identify vAio such letters go to, by types of recipients or types of requesters?
- .. T^ai+ tevT>* CVts-n Cc^-i,, o-Cfcci . ■T^ ^y '. . ' -'••4>,n »o Wrt +o< o n. : „■.
-^W -za-'-cs -l>n«vv> Wrre, rt^a,--*'**!
- what IS the approximate volume of such requests (even a ballpark estimate, e.g.. 2 per
month or 100 per month?) J-5 ^r t.-^ "■>
2. Do newly naturalized citizens get any kind of penonalized letter from an INS official •
the Commissioner? aDD? Up Ao *>-c sreVe-'-'t ^-^ '>«. ^■'.•c*.^ ofCca.,
4. If the White House decided tomorrow that it wanted to implement a policy of writing
to newly naturalized dtizais, how long would it take for INS to supply them with the names and
addresses to do so? Assume (0 that we only have to supply automated data, and (u) that vit have
to supply all names & addresses. ^■^.| '<*,(, ;. -. /' ;. .''.' . rl-
rd like to get responses back to the White House by the end of the week, if possible, so
please feel free to call me with the information rather than taking time to draft a memo. Also,
please call if you'd Oke to discuss this, or if the time fivne is unrealistic. Thanks.
V -.^v^^-cV.P,*^ (or T>aT/lvJ< *« rr<-,.v^. .^••.•-•My ,1 >?<«N»^ -VV^/ .oo-V* ^c
Vft.V e o.-. «Mi;.V»»» »AN. m.i^'-i\c<*\ jaacao - ■■iiii too ^e^r .^< -/'or.
137
THIOtAfMIC MtSlAOI
IMaGRATION fc HATURALIZATION
SBRVZCB, HEADQUARTERS
HASHZMSTON, D.C. 20536
PRIORITY
UNCLASSIFIED
B.
.2211^
MBT5B95
rat MVOaMAKOM GUI
CRAIG HOWIE
51*-5P^*
KfiOfa
El
TMiiMCiMtuiarcaMMuacnNMCNir
MMMatlOmUMWIItWP«W*.M»»ii<^««<«I«»<MH«Mw<
TOi
ALL DISTRICT OXRECTORS (BXCSPT FOREIGN)
ALL OFFICERS -IK- CHARGE (EXCEPT FOREIGN)
SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL CONGRATULATORY LETTER/NATURALIZATION
ALL DISTRICT AND SUB OFFICES ARE REMINDED TO. PROVIDE ALL
NEVOiY NATURALIZED CITIZENS WITH COPIES OF THE PRESIDENT'S
CONGRATULATORY LETTER. THE WHTTB BOUSE DESIRES TBAT EACH
NEW CITIZEN RECEIVE A COPY OF THE LETTER AT THE
NATURALIZATION CEREMONY (WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE OR COURT)
AND HAS ESTABLISHED THIS AS A PRIORITY.
OFFICES MAY OBTAIN SUPPLIES OF ^HB LETTER FR<»< THEIR
RESPECTIVE FORM CENTER. QUESTIONS: MARY ELLEN ELWOOD,
HQOPS, 202/514-0078 OR CRAIG HOWIE, . HQADN, 202/514-5014.
r n iiiT T iTiiiiTi T ren pn f WB»n ^
Uu.5 \ C.;^ac«ttf,ae.
l\-!,V
.v.-^.^ eTf ("(«•.
MM Ha
1
1
ALL DISTPfCT
DIRBCTGRS
(EXCEPT
FOREIOO
ALL OFFICERS
IN CHARGE
(EXCEPT
POREia))
UNCLASSIFIEP
138
Anchor > xaxyn Oubla ac CTO-OC-001
MMi t/37/«f liSS fM
yrloxi«yt ■ocaal"
xoi Bom n&.Bomi on von orrxei itcsaown •« anapaiM
oei o*Ti4 B KDMBbarg at a»-0(n
tOi SeoCt O MfTlnf •« aOMBB
TOi lr«n<i X rvilav •« no-ooi
ce> aQsai nx-WQUM on fOR omc* itmifonp m crespai**
cc: BonDt USX.IVIM vn rocr oma iitsoook m axaapMiM
CCi Dala ■ •wwdara u lft-007
Subjaect m«i Mat's mm. L«tt«r
/^.
Crai-g,
AB aj tpad i fd t*qa««t waa plaead vith Bgns ea July 2S,
19fS. teeerdiag to IaCo fsoa IQ «ha aspsecad ahlp data la
ll-«-9l. Qaaatlttaa ordaxad ara 1,000,000 for Iaa« aad
700,000 for naac. Aeeertfiag eo yoar Info thla la going eo
ba an laaoftlelaac aaeutt. Xf ye** caa gat aoaa prejaetad
uso flguraa for lYVt aa aantlesad. Z will plaea a aau ecdar
wiui BQ upon raealpc o< lafo f a x i oi i.
Any aetica to obtala prlatlag aeeaar, or Ineraaaa tha
quantity of euzrant erdar, i^wld haTa to ba eeerdlnatad
through tha 8Q print shop.
wa split enr ateck with HTC a aosth or aa age aof hava alaea
depletad tha raaalniag supply.
Xaxya
Datat 0»/27/i»»s 07iU aa (Hadaasday)
rroa: Craig Bowia
TOI COaZL.mo-OOl.rallar Braada X, caOZL.BQHBB. Eastings
sco«t o, ccM]UZ..Slio-xre-001.0able Karya
ect TZOOQX, CCMhZL. 00-007. Xoaaabarg David B, MEXLHOeo
Subjaeti Bat's Pras. X,a«t«c
Braada, Xarya 6 seotts Z raealTod a call froa Bob Battla, tos Bats,
yastarday. Ba was raportlng that thay vara alaost oat of tha cilataa
lattar for aatnraii a a t ioa iiaiaiiilia and that tha HBToraa Caotax had a
baekordar raqoast of war 700,000. Ba aetad that thay aspaet to aats aC
!•««« 31,000 by tha aad of tha ralawday yaar. Xt nroxaa baa aoy actra,
can thay ba ahippad a«« Bast? Oir U thaaa a>o a« ordar Cor raprmtiag,
eaa this raguast ba bo^ad op la tha liaar
Ttia iTy—mi'i"»i a goal la to natnrall»a 1.2 ■lllloa paraaa la rW. ha d
aa you know, t ha Bhlta Bouaa la rathar iaalstant that tha ClUitoa lattac
.6a ' ■ ;
dlstribatad to aaeh aay cttltaa. I do net think aay of ua waat to bo
eaagat shecT: riaaaa lot aa taiow if that* la aaychiag tha p ro graa eaa do
to balp with thla, and alae what eaa bo deno to halp e«t LOB. Also,
•c^ of tho folks oa tha Cltltanahlp OBh taaa aay ba ahla to balp tha
oantara projaet tha dlstrltootloa niiabara of this Xectar fee tha flva big
aats
offleaa for m*. Thaaka. Ckaig Wmtlm
139
l^ J^V f^^ Th e United Ntishborhood Organization of Chicago
ScytcmiwliL 1995 ~ ^ A
>:«« Lkly HUbiy KndhamOiMta
TteWhiwHotoB
1600 naMytvania Avenue
WotbiagiMi. li.C. 30S4XI
UcarMs. KodhamOiMoa.
Followtaa an nur owvmmimm mi JMinOar. ScMtmher 1 7. 1 am aknint yni to ite newcM opnAmmtay rtui h«
pKjcniaJ Iwcif tn UNO'« Aahc OtltiMMif Caa^fn. Bawd «« (tw mimher and ^lalliy oT UNO'i nuunlixatM*
innlJcalMiiU. m icH a».llJ«T» cdViBm iwtneacb. kcal awl nqpiixai INS ankiak h«»c am<nwched-t'Nl) wuh iJk
upfmiuaMy lo panidraw ia j fikit pm^mii whicii mulil im >irati:yic[i ihal riinxily aiMccu the cunvm naiuretizaiitM
ttacklos.
KK-uKine tia Mmcyksk 1(191 aU«><» n»«i-r»»»wiimciiial <iivaoi/3iiin!. m aisuiiv ihc dcocal hMlfc «•(' ih« luuutaliraino
pniGOK. ihsi ptiM wiH unaMc Ihc IN5 i<i i<ru« Malfon njitirjii/aiiiin i-asc icvicw. tvNTicr paiml an(l<iih«r pritiritio.
Tlw pitiil will mil inly iiiii«u 3|tplicuiu ihrauf b (tu rnvv>s m^ quickly and eniduMly. hw it ciuNc* ihc INS la
«Uie« the miUiom iii'naniniizaiiiiii :4tptiain«iiR'|vmlin( iwiiiinwiih: and Miilachiew: CmnmiNaancr l>iwis Metaour's
{•tial iiri2a day lunanwmL Wc Ndii:^- thai ihn pili* will ilnMiciily icducv iltc liiiw hetvvcn apfilicaiua and Oaih
odminuaiMioa (cummtly avunginy 1 1/; ■•• i«xi ycu*\ withtM cimpnvnixin; ihc iniegriiy or'ihc praoets.
Thi* pifcii abu may ptuvide the I Xsthkru wiifc a Miaicsic advanian: at neti y«3i'» Gwvvniian. The pcsplc fliidc ia
Chicacn's OMinallatMin toMkacdc tcpnauH iiu«sBMMi<i 14' pi«ouiaI vxicrK. .Similar hoctdiip etot in pniiiiciily
iia(<urtaai siai«a iltai have lam: uittan owcvniiaiiiiw iii'i lieittit: jvmuttcM naoikiUk. like Ctlifiiraia mj Tom. la lad
oacc icMd ia Chiota ibc |uk« may N: mw quickly i\^ic?K-d hy ilM lAh' ncivMitlc ia Lm Aaeetes. lite lAh lua
dcwkifcd a ctuavh-tvxwd aatarjli/^inii |<ni(nin ntiik-ksl atkt VHt I'v and I am ainridm ia Uicir ahiliiy iw exceed ilw
MnaxM wc have acci<niplidicJ in Chicap<. ' ^
Koaisniziag Oiica^i^ hcncla. Mayiv KiL-hani M. I kilcy hat pkdvvd Tull .<uirr<^ '•< UNO'k Aaiv« Ckiyemhip
Canpokn. Aiiicncsai/ia; inunt|;tani< hy makiitf than jwan: ni'ihi: full ivwponuhilitiei ni'ciiiB3uhi|i it a priority Ctt
uitfpuMfeaadp(WauiRCM<r alias. TV-«pani«,-nha«vplannr<ltaf~c (lath cwnaihHiies in IWATor lO.CXIlaew
Amcficaiia at a lime AcBckaaiaf the aatuali/^aini pnua» Uf iimuanUii ni'dlpihlc Oitacrans at key lo the
Cianpaipi'i goal aftKUm new viaur KprnaiKVU Tor invA. Thou pi<4aiib> New Ameriauw can ba%« fitx teeiaL
IHikioL ami «et>iiontie itnpacu ma ju« ia Chitapt hm aiitin ihc Uniiitl .Stale*.
HnitiapikeaaiunliKiiiiia amtntvcniy wthia tht,*o«ii-it nl'a D*'d i-iiin:ndiip iaiibiivv pntviiks a cininicrpniM to ihc '
ki^MNHSM l*3ny>jaaAeBi«i k:i;al iumdgntina.TK ikMi: r «« jNm ihc pnihlctiia iintiu(iams hriag lu the United
***• l""* "fcai we ■> aowmry iki ti« imtpaK ■raiupram* inin Amuxaa Mciiay
I ha«« ciiekMcd two pwoai ihai capiaia the ii*xH'k atfkxu, nl IIN( i'< Caiiioaien. I am inienanol ia uaaNiriiine
^!!^ !•'" "* '^^"*»' P''"' P"*P"i ia •«*» iM ii«vn-i«tv ih- r»'«tk> "i' '»* impk-tnemation. I kvik Ciuwanl m
thsMiay rr<M« yoa. If yiw hanne any tiurainak nr imct. /*»»: tnwiaci inysrlf i«r my aMiiciatc Gaea Coined.
I'ir»iih'ni/>;nx'wite I liiKaatv
140
21.
MEMORANDUM FOR HAROLD ICKES
From: K«via O'Keeft
Re: New Qtixen Vetcr Refistradeo
Date: September 28, 1995 :
Before Fiscal 1994, INS generally received and processed about 300,000 naturalization
applications per year. By die end of this fiscal year, the number of applications will have
increased to 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 for next year. Of the 1,000.000 applications, the
overwhelming majority (75%) are concentrated in Ave cities.
Los Angeles
219.916
New York City
113.827
Miami
107.739
San Francisco
81.174
Chicago
66.817
By the end of fiscal 95. ENS expects to have completed 530,000 applications and to
have a backlog of 738,500 applications. This will be an increase of 76% . but it will still
leave a growing backlog of pending cases.
In response to die backlog. INS will implementing Citizenship USA. Tliis program is
designed to eliminate die backlog and insure diat b« the summer of 1996. die time period
from application to completion of the citizenship program will be six months. Citizenship
USA is being piloted in Los Angeles, and with die next four months will be expanded to
include Miami, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.
Under cunent funding, efforts to speed up naturalization processes cannot be achieved.
The two major components of the process. Citizenship USA and the UNNO project are
dependant on funding which is subject to Congressional notification and limitations.
As to voter registration. Citizenship USA will include a voter registration by mail form
in the packag* distributad to n«w citizens in Los Angeles. In addition to Los Angeles, the
voter registration packets ara included in Miami. In Chicago, local election officials register
at swearing ia caremooias u do San Francisco ofHcials. In San Diego, voter registration
efforts at n«w dtizaa swearing in ceremonies are conducted by die League of Women Voters,
Pro-America, and "yf* Can Vota." In Virginia, representatives of local government attend
ceremonies and provida registration by mail packets. In Washington, D.C. also providas voter
registration packets to its jiew citizens.
In total, dia INS effort at voter registration togsdier widi die efforts of local electad
ofRdala and groups such as die League of Women Voters is resulting in registration of
n atura l i zi fd cttizsnsL But tfaa paca of naturalization will limit the number of new votan.
A copy of dia Justice Department memorandum on INS processing u attached.
141
2).
MEMORANDUM FOR HAROLD ICKES
From: Kevin OlCeefe
Re: Naturalization Ceremonies
Date: March 13. 1996
I have reviewed the process of voter registration in naturalization ceremonies. In every instance
in which a new citizen is sworn in, the new citizen receives a packet fiom \H.S. which includes
a voter registration mail in card in the form ^jproved by the Federal Election Commission under
the National Voter Registration Act In addition to the cards, a number of groups operate voter
registration activities at ceremony sites including local election ofBcials, the League of Women
Voters, and other non-partisan organizations involved in voter regisiration activates.
In situations where the ceremony u for smaller groups, under 1,000 and usually around SOO; on
site voter registration is very successful for both new citizens and others. Where ceremonies are '
larger, in some cases approaching 10.000 it is physically impossible to manage effective voter
registration efforts for a number of reasons. The primary reason is time. It takes at least one
hour, and sometimes longer to fill a hall with 10,000 people. The ceremony can last up to an
hour. It takes approximately two minutes to fill out a registration card. For a crowd of 10,000
the card completion is not a problem, collection is. After a period of two hours plus, most
people want to get themselves and their families out of the hall especially if children are present
There is no way to keep the people there and ask them to line up in front of a table and register
to vote even assuming that the local registrars could staff the tables necessary to service 10,000
new voters.
In Chicago, tiiere is a plan for a mass ceremony this summer. The registration attempt to be
coordinated with Skiimy Sheehan, our best field organizer. Sheehan is trying to see bow a voter
registration could be conducted when a crowd in the thousands are sworn iiL I will keep you
advised.
142
^2.
MEMORANDUM
TO: AtaKAJaWkBir
*RE: 189S NatumCzaSon Hiring Uwd
UT: Fe&niary 26,1980
m <ha MMng point papa r wret* FrM^ p«- thB WhiM Hoiaa rvquKt to P«n
Barry, you w«lneCieat»Ml I stfd that INS <• hiring more than 850 addKenaistafp
topPOcaaa a p pBwati ona ^ *
TTw nunbar oontas from tf)a foiAofringr
1985 R^^uui jnvTwiy:
270 ( a ppro Bdwa ta<ygHftoflhaieW p a» mgi an(oflioafaand<Kindartcs) •
ISSe.Rapra^ananing: ~*
k 40OC27T) taiiip qrar y oWcer^and130 t e<Tyofarydt(1cifarSeataa»6rT>erlt»))
» i5O(75:afnpo0toW9and75ta(npdarf«ferMh«rdU«s-4mentf«) '
• ^•^ •■• 88 (oofltractofi tor Safvjoa Cantm)
Thit eomaa to a UtSa o¥ar 90a (Or couaa, It it not 900 FTFs, a most of ItMM '
persons veNradonry far a pcrQon of thayaar.) ibraughttfwonnouKatftotaldeyvrila
•^noratftanaacrtjQcauaathanirnberaterthacthgoTiaaandthacentBKtarsgaBtlg ••
being daSanninad.
143 '
\
MEBIORANOUU ^ b O-^*^
23.
TO: ^mcrnKmnmsiL. •
Offiea or ttM Vie* PrMidant
FM: DtvidE _
CHizenahipU Sr-
RE: Po»sibl« Awltano for C Kteanship USA firom NPR
lyn - F«biuary22,19S8 ■
^Thank you for ytJurMndoffvcf possible assistanc* for this prajaet HcnB'sssn
Initial jjst of halp wa could us«
1. J§maaranl Md*Mr- Wa would ba happy to hava adiStianaLstaff, particularly In our
larger oflteea. W* could usa aoma paopla on raguiar day ihifta, and even more far an
aftemoon-avanlng shift and Dor vv«a)canda(SM.^ and Sunday aftamoon). Wavwruid
nead roughly tha sama rttjmbars of tamporary ac^udiealions ofltoars (GS 5 - 1 1) and
clerical support (G$-4). For thaa^udleationaofnoarpoaitiona, It would ba great to
ha>« parsons wHh siiTdlar experience: datertrMng eHgibnity for disaster loans, VA
ban^g^viaaSi-ortheiaQe. ^
:kOur efllcae could utnas these people (particuiarfy dadcs) immediately. In or:ier
to cohduet interviews, arflirtnators would need approadmateiy 1 week of instruction ind
j( week of on4i«^ training. Therefore, ft wodd be beat if the perwns filling thesn
"positions could s^3 monthi or longer, and camato us in batohee. AAvtraMng. each
new temporary eflleerworidng fun-time oouid complete et leest 200 easea par montr I,
and maybe mora. Aitemetively, we could use these worVars to conduct the requirar.!
English languaga/tivicataeting or to help with ceremonies, fteeing up other
intan/lewefs to conduct man In ter v i e ws daily.
We VBlnteraetedheiiherdataliees or flolouohed workers. mthecaseoT
fUrloughed attf; MS weuM look to fM wtfRdent funding to pay fbr salaries at the awne'
leveiaea our other tempa. We would hope that their bane ms o uu id be oaffied by the
home egendaa. We era already tiyfrtg to hirs as many tsmpcss r i aaaa our budget ¥111 .
pamlt, so even findbig partW lUndng for Itjrtoughod wortoars win posa a chaOanga.
We may need to Mk far your help with thia. aa It Is asdrameiy unOkafy that INS ooulct gat
a d Ul tlon Bl fUndar ap TDg r a nuneU B uuu ghCongpasatWa year. Nonetheless, we win Arid a
waytfthepeoplaareavanabla. ..^ -
- Wguldttbafsaafcia to obtain ArnarlCorpsvolunlaafa to help our?
144
Here's a first oit at what WB can LiM in our iargastoffieu. Than aratha ^ ^*
numbor of additional staff w« oouid uae at one timo; mora individuala eeuU ba rotutad
through to maintain this leval through Seplambff.
LosttiQia' Ttrngpfflgn' TampCleffca
«Ld8 Angelas 75 78
NawYorK 30 30
Miami 28 28
San Frandsco 30 30
Chicago .< 25 25
Wa ana trying to idertfMy naads in othar dtias as well
? Staff Speeiaflata!-*
In each of the isiad dtlea, a srjiall number of axparlanead atiffoould maka z big
dlffafenee. We woulrfbe Intereatad in:
■ Nfanagars with (OQiatieilK^anea for qutefcaeeon, to help handle the
temporary worltferea ar rangements;
> Spadal ayants plannara, to assist with oafemony iogisticai planning; and
» Community relatlens spedaHsti, to help ua manage relations and planning v.ith
tha many community groups invislved In off-«lte IntervlewsL
In Washington, our team could usk
> An a a yar l e n ca d prDCuramartt apedanstfaorrtraetwrttar to hwlpwiita and moy:'
contracts/coopandive agreamants for caramony planningj
» An analyakfsmlHarwtlhdasign&igstatlstieal reporting daiabaaaa, as well ae
anaiysing trend data, so that vw can provida up4»idale numbers on pregrasc ,
spot any probiem veaa Immadtateiy, and respond to a grmving number of
AdmMatration and Ccngraasianal requeets for ioeal eniyses; and
A ooRvnur^icaiiana spedaBat support our responees to the prass and to help
desi^i/produca plotted maiarlala>
145
23.
W eould f— fly xia* • good c cm r io iiy spaam in New Yortc City. FrernMoy
through SeptMibsr.wanMdaddtionaleipaciiy to handle 25,000 navvdtizans and
family membora par month. Tha VQr|uiM CMi b* divWad Into savarai sessions per
month, 90 smaller venues (seating no tawer than 3;00G and prefsratsiy closer to 10,C X))
oauld be used mere frequently.
In Los Angeles, the federal court controls the ceremonies, which are held in tfi a
LA Convention Center. So tar. they have been quite coo p e ra t i ve In providing detes to
keep up with our increasing runbers. Butwewffl need ar«theri0*12 ceremony da:,s
in July<£eptcmber, in order to svmbt in those pamns approved by September Gnstend
of waiting the nonnal 2 moRtha mora). We are raising this to the courts, and we shoiJd
know soon (fttiey and the ConvenOon Canter win aoeommodate this need. lfnot,vve
will need some help in findmg appropriate space there as welL
1 Qffieagpsee
Given the need to have files and eomputeis evaJlabie. it makes sense to utilize
our asdsting prpiect ofRoe space completely, rather than finding newtemporary office
locaQons. It would be most heipM if 6SA agreed to let us use our offices in Federal
buildngs for extended days (8anv8pm) end on weel< e n ds . That wfll involve provldng
guard staff, as well as covering ad^onal uttlltles charges.
S. PPoeurJWent ^- . -
As we discussed In Otf mairtlno, we have several contrada/dooparatlve
agreaments tor pilot prefects In our major dtiea, wMeh wa would IDce to move ASAP, i-i
order to free up atcff to move more eaaas. These include planning and supporting
ceremonlce, provldng information to applicants, and English/dvics testing. We woulc
appradete help firom NPR and 0MB in finding the fastest ap pr opr ia te vehidee. We
have as^lered piggybaddng one of these on an existing DepL of Education grant, but
they are not enthuaiasfle; pertaps your offiee could help vrarfcthiB out
Thanks for your conslderatloa Wa^ continuing to check the n e eds for staff ir
otherdtfes,endtobrainsto(TntaratfwrpesaibilitieataincreBeereeult8. Ifyouhawea-y
queatiena, I em be reached at S144gi8; AOee Smith Is al 514-1900.
146
^..jg^jb— ^ doug (Mbroth«r at npr @ CCMAIL t • t
^^SS^tCS* 09M 9/99 09:38 AM X ^
To: 0«b Smith
cc:
Subja c t: INS CuMomar S«(vle«
Maw Forward Itami
Fron: doug farbrochar ac npr
Data: 3/9/96 10:19AM
To: Oanlal Naal ac npr
CC: Laurla Lyons at npr
Subject: IMS CuaCooar Sarvie*
Mew Text I ten; Text_l
I ' m %<orlclng with lH8_to lapr ov aervi ce. I want .thenuco. atay. open
evenlnga and weekend* to_conduct njLturallzation Interviews ^ but. they think
'"gsa will balk at guarding and operating the buildings, who should I talk
to^ make sure this is not an obstacle? Barrora? ">
147
Autiicr.
Ricnard J Diefefiba- -t HQ-EEO-OOl
OaC!: 3/19; 9 6 I: OS PM
Prior icy: 'normal
TO: John Clarke «c ERO-003
TO: David H Parish at ERO-003
TO: Phyllis ^ Chi ae NRO-001 .
TO: Joe M Jansen at NRO-001
TO: Debbie Dusenberry ac SRO-001
TO: Wavne Johnson at SRO-001
TO: Greg Ward at HRO-003
CC: Rufus F Johnson
CC: Deniele C Berrnan
Subject: Citizenaihip USA II
2H.
Message Content
Please be aware of » 'White Hotue' initativa to further » nhin77 firi'<
~ l(ieelerate tke SerVlW'! Waturalix atidn efforts und er the Citizenship
-O bA p iu1ttJ L._ Tim iii f o w a atiou lU1» Office has at tail tl n w l e viaxdABq
tHls jnitiatTve is limited. We do know however, that the latest
efforts to su ppnrr rt^_ £ro]*gC iwnich runs through December) cal"l~f or
■ ^"^^ ■ " facilities to 6 a.m. - a p.m . "
on Sunday. The focus is at existi ng
" extending the hours at existing
"(Monday- Friday) and B a.m. to ?
citizenship locations, and, with the exception of New York City, no
Sddicional space beyond what has been obtained or in process is
required.
WPR renresencatives and David Rosenberx? have visited G. ^ ft in L^. San
'Fran, Chi, New" York and Miami on thga intHtive so you may want to
contact these GSA regions las well as INS district oftieest to b'eeom e
up-to-date on these evenfl':
Please provide this office with any potential impact to yi. ir space
actions that this "White House* initiative has caused.
As more information becomes available I will pass it on.
'Js-
148
dou9 f arbrothcf at npr @ CCMA1.L
09/1 9/96 09:37 AM
To: Dab Smith
ec: *
Sub|«ce Ramlndar* for Oeug (or Laurial:
Haw Forward Itam;
..............................<..._ Forwarded
From: doug farbrothar at apr '
Data: }/9/96 10:S1AH
To: doug farbrothar at npr
cc: Laurie Lyons at npr
Subject:- Remlndara for Doug (or Laurie]:
zs.
Wew Text Item: Text_l
Check with 0PM about converting competitively hired tempa to permanent or
term eo^loyees without another competition. INS in LA thinJca they are
going to start losing people this sunner if they can't promise them longer
term jobs; the tenp athority runs out in September. '<
n
Talk to ms and Justice security bureaucrats about speeding up hiring.
Instead of waiting t or mon ths for the conylete backgroun d ch eck, how abou t
a_ti ngerprint ch eck then bring then on board while the background checic ia
continuing . DoD~36e« "that; T tKihlr: Tfiere'is plenty of noa-SMsitiva.
work ana tra^ Tinq *?r tP *™"£Q do w >itlt hh^y'ra waifirity ^ Besides, I hea«
that the cont ract employ ees %rt>o han dl e ha nat urajixation certificates, the
—most sensi tive do cu ment, diba't gat a backgrou nd check.
Call Barrom about INS hours and space.
149
IS.
1] From: Dorothy C Sucrtueed 3/26/9< 7>«1M (2«9« bytosi 1 In)
.: Kan L Smith, Themao M 0'N«11. Stophan A Smith
.bjaet: ClUzanahlp USA
— ^^— — — — ^— — ^— ^^— ^— — Feruardad — — — ^^^^^— —
offlt Evangalla KlapaKla at EK0-MYC-«t4 3/23/96 2t42PN (1S92 bytaa: 1 In)
.: Laaiay E Small at ER0-««3. Dorothy C SuartXMod at ER0-«*2
caipt Raquaatad
: Robart Breulllat. Hary Ann Santnar at ER0-NYC-««3
bjact: Cltlzanahlp USA
— _^^__^______^_________ Haaaaga Contanta _— _— _— -^____
OoCtla and Laalla.
Thla la to lot you knou th« lataat In cltlzanahlp USA. Ua had a
maatlng ovar tha wookand at tha dlraetlon of tha Oaputy Commlaalonor. Thla
coming waak wa will ba gattlng additional poaltlona. ate., for tha
CUSA projact.
Thus far. wo gave out ovar 2*M applications for aach vacancy poatad.
You ulll naad to hava tha appllcatlona procaaaad a day or «o aftar tha
cloalng data. Ua waro Instructad to do llmltad claarancaa on thaaa
indlvlduala (flngarprlnt chaek. and drug taotlng. only). Tha ramalnlng
procaaa ulll ba dona uhila on-duty. Slnca tha eartlflcat* la laauad
In alphabatlcal ordar appllcatlona aheuld ba ravlawod liiwadlataly. If J^^
you hava a problam with ovartlaw awn ay I mm aura^Lanl will ba ganafeua "7^
bacauaa aha_kno wa thla la a top priority wlO> th a Vtilta Keuar. AlabT
tha lady from Drug Taatlng eallad «a and I will raturn har call on
Monday . I hopa aha will eooparata bacauaa I'm looking for a 3 day
turnaround tlma for drug taat claarancaa (from day of Intarvlaw) .
Plaaaa advlaa ma en Uadn«sday how haavy tha load of appllcatlona ha«
baan. Ua »rm canceling tha ad aftar Sunday tha 24th. axcapt for tha
Long laland papar which runa until Uadnaaday.
P.S. you •r^ all waleaaw to comn to NYC whan wa ara procaoalng thaaa
Indlvlduala. Hepafully. tlia waak of April 16.
Angola
150
0«v« Parikh
25
Froffli Stephen A Smith 11/22/9S 3:58PN (2297 byt««i 1 In)
}erothy C Sucrcueod
rhenw* N O'Nail. K«n L Smith
*ett UAIVCRS FOR NATZ HIRES
-i— Fo rvi«r d«d
: Robert J Longo at HQSEC 11/22/9& 11:26AN (1964 bytasi I In)
>t«ph«n A Smith at ER0-««2. Liz Robb at SR0-««1. Oavid L Hllne at NR0-««1,
:• a Raesa at URO-a02
Ipt Raquastad
Uta Spalding at HQBOR. Nancy E Ualaa at HQHRA. Kathryn E Shaahan at HQBOR.
lart J Longo, Gloria T Scott
lett UAIVERS FOR NATZ HIRES
Haaaaga Contents
item li Text.l
You may be aware that HQSEC requested DOJ/SEPS approval to obtain
lesser ecope background investigations than required by position
sensitivity for tsmporary NTE 1 year District Adjudications Officers
(DAD'S) and Applications Clarke (Apps Clerks) hired under the "NATZ"
initiativs. The OeparOnent DENIED our request. So, we will nsed to
obtain 81 's on the DAO's and LBI's on Oie Apps Clerks.
HQSEC is authorizing each ACSO to use waivers of preappointment
background investigations for all the temporary DAD and Apps Clerk
poeitione filled under the NATZ hiring initiative. In addition, the
ACSO's ars authorized to approve waivers for ALL ttiess positions, on a
:ase-by-cass basis. ACSO's will NOT need to send any of Oieeo waivere
to HQSEC for approval. OAO waivers can be approved under existing
slankst waivsr authority for lonagration Examiners (per INS msme dtd
12/2C/88 to ARC'S from AC. Psrsennsl and Training). HQSEC authority
Co approve waivers for the NCS Apps Clsrks hired under this initiativs
Is hereby delegated to ACSO's.
^s waivers are authorized *n4 thess are temporary positions. 128-day
background investigations (BZ's or LBI's. as rsqulrsd by the position)
'»n b« roqusstad to conssrvs funds.
•ell ms if you have any questions.
)eb LonQo
151
Ztaa««bMm_adTiaad.eluc wahay* 14 CMp MO« for CCTAwto hava
a acuricy problaaa • ae»a probably "graat, and ~aeaa probably jaiaer .
Furauane to a prvrieua CDlJrtalaeeafaraaeo call wltb lick Haaclaga ha
adriaad chat aueh altuacieaa ««ara not likaly ce ba daarad up rapidly
baeauaa of ttaa amunt of work ia aosic. aad tbat aaw aalactleaa abeuld
ba aada. I bavo baaa adviaad, hewaror, tbae BQUC woa't 'allew* ua to
withdraw our aalaetlena. My quaatieo* la thla • who tha hack ara thay
to tall ua who wa aheuld or aheuld net aalaet or un-aalaet. Dalaaa
•eawoaa can tall aa a rational baala for thalr actleoa. It ia ay
iatantlea to iMiadiataly prapara corr a apondanca to withdraw all
fourtaan of thoaa aalaetlona. an^ to hava feurtaaa na« aalactlona
mada. what do you thlakT
2i".
152
Author: Jaaan* M lUy ac no-003
MCai »/aO/»« ll!47 AM
Priority! Horval
Mc«lpt RoquMtad
TO: lilMa Convy ac DO-MZA-003
Subjaeci llaI3]i Ta^ OAOs
.. . . -- — Maaaaga Coacaaca
ZS.
Mould yeu chaek to ••% If tha eelleirlag ■■■ca wara raealvad la Hlaal:
Cltizaaahlp OSA frea tha 0£fiea of tha Oaputy Comlaaieaar datad March 3C,
19»<, and Hiring datad May 10, lf»C, .frea tha Offiea of Plaid Opa.? Tha March
oMMpaxmlta axcaadlag m ealllaga and tha May aaM ladlcataa that efflcaa
ahould ovaraalact by 30%.
Slnea Mlaai falla uadar Dallaa for Paraoaaal aad Sacurlty puzpeaaa. chaaa
maaaagaa hava all baoa forwardad to Kick Baatlaga, Buaaa Raaourcaa In HQ aa ha
la raaponalbla for tha CDSA hiring. Ma '11 gat back to you aa aoen aa poaalbla.
Forward Baadar
Subjaet: Ra(3]: Taap MOa
Author: lllaan Convy at SRO-MXA-003
Data: S/17/9C 3:31 PM
JEAHNI.
Wl KAV8 OVSX SSLSCTID. BUT KB AXB NOT BUNS PBRMZTTBD TO BRZNO
THOSB PEOPLB OH DOTY IM LIBD OP TBB PUUillUM NBOSB NAZVZRS WBRB MOT
GBAirrXD. WB HAVB OHLY BBBM ABU TO OSB TBBSB OVBR SBLBCTIOMS WHEN
TSBXB IS A DBCUHATZOM BY TBB PBIMUtY SBLBCTBB.
COMVY
Raply Saparater
Subjaet: Ra: Taoip OAOa
Author: Jaanna M Ray at 8BO-003
Data: 5/17/9C 13:33 PM
I apoka with Sacurlty In Baatam Raglan aa wall aa with Brian Mayara,
ROCOD, regarding thla laaua. A dlatrlct doaa NOT hava tha authority to
withdraw aalactleaa baaad ea aultablllty. Praaantly, only BQ baa that
authority. A walvar la tha ravlaw of prallalnary Information.
Employaaa who ara aalaetad for poaltlona ara antltlad to full aaeurlty
background chacka. Only whan tha proeaaa la cooplata can tha
aalactlona ba withdrawn for suitability raaaona.
Counaal haa had to vpaar bafora tha Marlt Syataaa Protactlon Board on
thaaa laauaa aad tha BarTlca haa bad to raaalaet aapleyaaa and
coaplata tha full aaeurlty baekgreuad chacka. Although job off ara aay
ba wlthdraim for ettaar valid paraoaaal raaaoaa, if you withdraw
aalaecioaa tot tha fourtaan that wara daaiad waivara it would appaar
that tha jotoa wara withdrawn for auitability raaaona.
Again, wa larn— and ovar-aalactiag for tha DAG poaitioaa.
Kaply Saparater
Subjaet: Ta^ OAOa
Author] Biehartf B Xallaar at BO-NZA-OOa
Datat S/U/M 4iS3 VN
153
M«y Btai T MoCaittiy EhNood
To: CCMMLHQ404.Lauri»Sullww JoIom L. CCMAILHQ4..
4/23M7d7pni
CUSAHMno-Fonranlwl
rack wintid to torn* If ttw (Wd CM now advlM n«w WrM (or Job appttcanls) that m* Job* wiB last through tte
q« (DAOa) or a »• ftrtMT far ttM dwics.
At tha m aa tlno wMti CMa Sala laat Thureday, this question cama up, and sha was pratly emphatic that we could not
yet make that Und of offer.
Has there bean any ii M »ewer * on this, so that we can use this as a way of making the jobs more sttractiva? INS Is
UM ii p e U ng wIM a lot of other ernpl uy ei s just now. We doni always get the best and bhghtast for example. In CHI, 9
of 11 aatedaea had crtniinal racpr rt ai
If we can tal people thai tha joba wfl be 3 months longer, we may get a better level of applicanL
Mary Ellen
154
.. __ — r • <x -"-.i -i^ai .r; .-.« •es;;..-ates ■..-.a
r:s: ;£ ■:^.• "3 CVSA mvesiijaiiins to :• *bou; 5163, :00. It ACT -as is i.r.d
less :.-.an 100 r.ew -ires tnrough -.-m end o* ch« FY. chen t.-.ey will -av« ens-;.-,
.-noney Co cov«r rh« 78 C'JSA invescigacions already at ACT. However, if ACT .-.as
CO fund 100 CO 150, Chen chey will not be able Co fund che 78 CUSA
inveecigaciona. On S/20 he will learn che expecced number of additional
investigations ACT will fxind during th« remainder of che FY. Then he can cell
us about th« funding needs. He will call me on S/20 and I will pass che
information on to you.
zs^.
Forward Header
Subject: LACK OF FUNDS FOR CUSA BI'S
Author: Robert J Longo at HQSEC
Oace: S/16/S6 2:30 PM
Winona/Jerry --
On 5/16. Dave Milne called to say h« has 78 BI/LBI funding requests
for new employees hired under CUSA (i.e: WHO HAVE ALREADY EOD'ED), and
ha has NO MONEY to fund their BI's/LBI's.
As you know. HQSEC has been funding CUSA BI/LBI requests from an ACT
G-104 because we made an arrangement to do so.
Well, as I understand it from Dave, HQ concacced ACT and asked ACT to
return funds, amd ACT returned $600,000.00 Co HQ. Then, a crush of
HQSEC requests to fund CUSA cases hit ACT. and ACT has run out of
money to fund these cases. Therefore, we cannot send the cases to j|
OPM. and the employees are on the rolls and no BI/LBI is being 7
conducted. '
/ This is exactly "h^t has happened to INS in the past, and INS got into \
/ quite a bit ot di fficulty 'ba ck when* for hiring new emplo yees who were!
/ NEVER inves tiga ted. That li wny P&J in siscs ehat_the OPH background — y
I investigation be scheduled befor e a waiver rs"'appfove<f! He made an y
1^ exception tor CUSA, but we need Cd t^solv e tRU qulcKiy. ^
I told Roy NOT TO SQID any more funding requests for CUSA cases to ACT
until we resolve this matter, which I will pursue with Winona/Jerry on
Tues. 5/21.
^y^
155
Z(»
rremt Barbara M Tanaglia at HQ-OOa
.4.^>^"'
Tot . HQKXM OSA.HQDOI OSA POST Oma l(*JSMrnC,TAALBlHI... XJ^"~0, '' :>" ."
Oatai /Vl^H, 3/11/9S 5:31am -A^V*" 0^ ^P T- .'' T,JL- ,
Subject! Hamo to you from tha Coaaiaaiooar ^ v'u/f i . P"'t fli/'i*'
Alica, balow ia a aaaaaga tha Cooadaaiooar wantafl ■• to paaa on to you.
Pigura tbis la an aaay way of doing it. /
■nianka £or tba draft Citiaanahip OSA Haltr. Zt looka good to aa but
Z think it naada aora apaeifleiey in aoaa araaa, a.g., bow nany o£ tha ISO
bava baan birad offica opaninga ia ■apriag* ahould ba abla to ba nailad to a
apacifie aoath by now. Alao, I rhlnlc it aigbt wall bava a city-bycity
aaetioo in wfalcfa kay davalopaanta in aacb of tha fiva ara outlinad. Hara aay
ba tha placa to atata ai^aetad ataffing lavala, parcantaga ineraaaa that
rapraaanta ovar laat yaar, how aaay (about) ara on beard, liat of groupa '
participating, ate. Wa want to giva national ovarviaw but tha prupoaa of tha
naltr ia to prvlda follca in kay loca l aa with infosaatioa and raaaaxiranea that
thinga ara happaning for thaai. Zf peaaibl'a, Z'd alae highlight a diffarant
city aacfa tiaa for a 'faatura* of aoowthiag that ia netawortfay. What conaa
to Bind right now may ba tha 00a Batioo affort and difwiar in jljaa i or tha
Oora aaatinga in L.A. (though aaybo thay'ra baat kapt Irrfk^T) '
Z alae proodaad Raha that tha fir« » ^'^^pr^ m^^r^/rrm^ to Rano,
copiaa to Panatta, VP, Zekaa, Cianaroa, taaaual, and Saaco) would ceaa naxt ,, j^
waak with th a naltr tha wa fc[ t;» *n\\nm zf thia ia not a good aehadula froai ^^^^-^
tha atandpo^ilt of tiaaj.y nuabara of amafhlng, lat'a atill do aa updata ^^
intataal aaao for thaa naxt waak laying out what tha aehadula will ba froB "^^
' ^/7>
I
^
156
vj-3. department or Justice ^-t
tmmigraiion and Naiuraliution Service
S
l(o
OITice of the Coounitsioner 42} / 5(r»<t MW.
»mrti«„on.oc203j« ^ 25. 1996
»
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
ic-ic /I
FROM: THE COMMISSIONER//. ^ ^ /i'L(^<-<l^Jl^, i.f
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE '' *-
SUBJECT: CITIZENSHIP USA REPORT
I am enclosing a summary rcpon on CITIZENSHIP USA, our nationwide initiative toljecome
current with citizenship processing. We are aggressively pursuing our FY 1996 goaTof 1.2
million cases completed. Highlights of this report include:
Increased StafC Since last August, the citizenship workforce in our five target districts has
increased from 236 to 791 positions (a 23S% increase). Another 100 contractors are being hired
to handle citizenship applicaoons for these districts at our Service Centiers, a major eSiciency
gain. 62% of the peak staff are now working; virtually all of the remainder are hired and should
be on duty within the next month. (See hiring chart attached to report). We are working with the
National Performance Review staff to increase staffmg further, and to implement expedited
hiring and clearance procedures. ' *
New Qffiyea. New Citizenship Centers are operating in Los Angeles (2), San Francisco (2), and
Miami. In April, new offices will open in El Monte (Los Angeles), Fresno, and Chicago. New
York City will open another location in early May.
Increaain y Case Completion*. Through January, INS had completed processing 241 ,567
applications, up 61% over the same time period last year. The completion rate will accelerate
dramatically in the next few months, as major staffing increases take effect. (See chart on
completions attached to report).
Stronger Commnnlt v Partnerahlp i. Our work with cotrununity-based organizations has taken
an enormous leap forward in the past few months. In our five key districts, we now meet
monthly with more than 100 commimity groups, as well as local ofRcials. Cooperative efforts in
application assistance, convenient interview sites and ceremonies are growing rapidly. With few
exceptions, the feedback is extremely positive.
157
ZU.
The Honorable Vice President Albert Gore
Leon Panetta, Chief of Staff; White House
Carol Rasco, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Rahm Emanuel, Assistant to the President and Director of Special Projects
John Hilley, Assistant to the President and Director of Legislative Af&iis
Doris Matsui, Deputy Assistant toathe President and Deputy Director, Office of Ptiblic Liaison
\
41-503 97-6
158
27,
00
^
I
i
I
159
H •■■ 2'?.
Memofor INS District DirectoR in: Los Angeles San Fnmcisco
New York Kfiami
Oiicago Newuk
Houston
From: Doris Meissner — Commissioner, Immigrttion ind Naturalization
Sendee ^^A*^'^'^'
I hereby delegate to you my authority to waive INS rules and regulati ons,
within the confines of law. Please let me know which rules youhtve
waived.
C^
^ I expect you to use this authority to strengthen security against y
naturalization of aliens who do not meet stmnory q» «|'fi''^<»n standa rds
"orT^^&eacan citizenship, and to enhance tEe speed and coi^aieQce ot tiie
process for those who do. I bold you accountable for your judgment and the
results.
ma, V
V
I also authorize you to recruit and hire tempofaiy enqiloyees locdly as
needed to ej^edite the naturalization of qualified alient. '7
r qualified alient. '7
I
27.
160
iviemorandum to:
Edward McElroy
District Director, New York
Brian Perryman
District Director, Chicago ' ^
Walter Cadman
District Director, Miami
Thomas Schiltgen
District Director, San Francisco
Richard Rogers
District Director, Los Angeles ,
Subject: Citizenship USA
We hereby delegate to you full authority to waive, suspend, or deviate from
DOJ and INS non-statutory policies, regulations, and procedures provided
you operate within the confines of the law. Please let us know which rules
you ISive waived.
We expect you to use this authority to strengthen security against
naturalization of aliens who do not meet statutory qualification standards
for American citizenship, and to enhance the speed and convenience of the
process for those who do. We hold you responsible for your judgment and
the results.
Jamie Gorelick Chris Sale
Deputy Attorney General Deputy Commissioner
161
doug farbrothar at npr @ CCMAIL X g
09/19/9S 09:36 AM C^ " •
To: Oab S<nith
ec:
SubiMC Ra(2l:ms
Forwarded
Frost doug farbrothar
Datai 3/30/9C 3:41AM
*To: llalna C. Xaaarck ac OVPMOTES
Subject: R«t31i IMS
Haw Taxt I tan; Ra: INS
I ta lked to Chria today and ahe aeeaM to be making progreaa vlt the
ai lagatlon latter. Let' a give har another day or two. I think ah e ii
trying to get the HQ ataff uaed to the ideal ' '
. Reply Separator
Subject: Re: IMS
Author: Elaine C. Kanarck at OVPHOTES
Data: 3/19/9C 10:08 AM
NHMT DO Z MUD TO DOT DO I MEED TO CALL DOiUS MySBLF? Oft CBRZS SALE?
162
deug larbrothar at npr • CCMA|.
Ot/1*/MO«:3S AM
ia
Ta: OabSmMi
Haw tttgvmrd It— t
............................ — ... PonAxted
Proai doug CmsbcetlMr
o*t«i )/ao/f« tiSSiN
*Tei Clain* C. Kaaucek at OWMOm
Subjaec: Ra(4ls HB
Naw Taxt It— t Rai Ratal: INS
now harj "f »il<*'*^ ^^' flv ei tlaa. Tha ato ry
vry **** n«op t« working on th>; backlog.... aontha
waiti ng fog Om and DW haadouartara to adrartlaa vacanclaa, aaa— bla
llata ot apyilcanta. aaka aalactlona, aand tlngagarlnta ►«» >■»«« rar. ^.t
_t>^v OPM gKa ek eharaetar rafaranea « |n<< pgawtam aaalovara (tha aaaa lairaX
ot accutlnv that I qff^ tar gay aaerat national aactirlty claarancat . Xll
thla for tawpogagy ■^ ^^t»■ ««; t-ti« n«^ giyH na s laral. By tha tl— tha pgoea aa
la flnlahad. ■ ■ny ■pg lleanta haya takan othar joba. and tha proeaaa atarta .
ovag. In ayagy elty i '"*'* »«-»•»•««•► mi-ai- torv ballava thay can q ^tsKTY ******
anomfh paopla locally to g^n two ahlfta and waakanda H only thay had th a
authogl ty.
Bar Thag aday ■orning, than I'll call y— to
Tall Va ga I'» thiahlaa aboct ■arching with hl» on tha plekat llaa.
^^_^_^_.^^^_^^^^^^^_ Kaply Sapairator ____^.^_^_^^_^^^^.^____^_
Sublact: Rat Ra(2li HO
Author: Rlaln* C. Kaaaxek at OWMOTU
Data: 3/20/9C >tlO AH
OKAY, I ■AWB-JOVT OOTTBr ABOm* TntSKTBTIin IMTTMM. PROM rAtBB.VSOA WM MARI
TO fflCSBT Tl^ XHB RIAIHIIIAMBM. IRI TO FIND OR m TD
aoug larbrothor at npr @ CCMAtL
09/l9/9«09:3S AM
163
Subject: R«(ei:INS
WW forward It«m;
.. .. ■ porwmxdad
From I deug farbrothar
Data: l/ai/9C ttSam
•To: Elalna C. Xamarcic ac OvraOTBS
Subjact: lta(«1 : INS
New Text Item; Re: Rel4j: INS
I favor draeei c meaeurea. I — mee ting wtth Jamie q and Chrla S Frid ay at
'1:10. It I don't get what we need. I will call tor heavy artllleryT "
Reply Separator
Subject: Re: Re[4l: INS
Author: Elaine C. Kamarcic at OVPtiOTES
Date: 1/21/96 9:36 AM
T Hg PRESIDENT IS SICK OF THIS AND HAM T3 A CTIOM. IF MOTHIMO M0VK3 T ODAY WE'LL
lOCVE TO TAXB SOME PRETTY DRASTIC kEXSOBSS. ' —
164
TO: Alb«rc Oor« ac EOP_OVP
CC: elain* C. Kaiurcic ac EOF OVP
CC: Bob Ston* ~
CC: Laurl* Lyons
Subject: INS
z?.
Hassaga Concancs
A ttar tha maatinq Jania told Elaine that thay woul d:
1^ delegate hiring authority
/ - give each city manager a -project budget- to spend as needed
'- a?i^ thl'!I?rT' '^=''«'^?""<» investigations on nS^ e4loy::t
I - allow the cities "overhire authority.- «jr«==»
Jamie said she would de liver hy Tii.cH.y
rt.^L^"" ^ Tuesday waiting with the local INS manager for the
wtli a^ive on l^T'lt}^ °" '"2 =S"""= ''"^ "^"^^ ^'^^ promlseS relief
will arrive on time, and second that it will be all its cracked up to
^'^ou'i:^ri^'°n^^h^ :c:.o^r"*'" -°"-^ '« -^" ^' --*» ^"<»-^-
165
FAMDKD 1C4TZ INnX4TXVK VOS CUS4
4^^^.
Tli««MhtTiMhirTTTrt'^nnii|||f|nfr|ii wrMd«iriwitfal^fl»»CO»Aatiwtyt^
CWAtnaSbdidbyDwidlaMMNwadAtWPKiMiirtMlwhmihVfcag iBji^
gi««Btl»daiqfsenMdbybadtBtaidSBloii^ DuriafArirteuraadt«vleir,th(fi««natdt
•win of ik« tfbiUM thi A** CUSA dnktt «■« teviag k bini; sMBi^ cteanaec^ fta89
With thk iBfenoaiea AiT ^i** '■i>i**d ^*itt ^ ^l'^ Bmm^ IXU lad BOW INS HQ, BMS
fin II ■! w iiii g mm iiritti ilifflriiltiw U m l liijiiii nil rnrtrilnn Th* aim of tUt iaitiMiw ia
to MupoMV lool (fitliht TiOTgifi wkk tH ocAfflqr lod bmbi thijr oHd to icooopBih tho
(oii of bocontdf omBlBNilunBHBOB^rtkondcKthoTY. Along witk Ail floftffitjrnd
BMMi h o w i nw wiB ccnilfai l um ii nl i dilit) fcr m i rfin thi rt > w Wt iJ fttiL
The buie unmpllea of tfab iBidiitiw ii M fbSowK
ToiltowthoCU8A oggij Btheriaakaoffa|toiqBdtDa30HtacwtiomK|ttj^ ^^
TtgioMi Omfw hww ft— miiM nu by Hmifj flMMtw) MB uiMki mml iJMCB aa^ag fcf
till nbtdv* Witt eeooftoa.) TN>20KiBemnlibiMdaBtfamffdo«otidios«ziDtte
1993 DAM phn ftuTdoiigHtid ftt Mts BtlHABH^i993 ndJuuuy, 199C sdmcoMBHt Tbo j
CTJSA oflM wa be ibb to |p«kl ite find! iquil to tte latBaf iDOOM a 117 aaa« ttejr
dees ^pfopnite. iBonif woid^ tBifladi csiDeipcKftootiBpjffe% ouuUHiibcipt uvuuiuo
eta Tbeoaiy ca v t wabelltMyaaiippiMtioBfflidbyMpcfcai. l996iiooapiatediad
tfai ifniHi Mt iwofB ■ 9f ttai MB 0( Idi bkm ycv.
I i if eii l bwow 9 the fbof pet pfoow to ideBt^r sspvoweflMtt ftv tni 0bib^ tod too offlci^t)
mpeoiiblB for dntfng ■■cfa;
1. PvnadtndSecuriqriHUH: BQHRAndBQSECwilltfvinnteliaf ndieeuritx
cMiiULe |iiocMMt (0 nBOvo i^r obittMi BB BiMBiBM tso pncBM> Tfligr wiD cost out s
eew w p e Jt e u pi w ei lw o ^nni locil co^ftol bw o n i pofr BMiin biMl m OBd d ed g> g iiiniii oe 08
then
3. BadfttiMBM: BCyWSQlMeatci^adBQIBUDaBOiaiatagaacwBcpidbidptaeedknftr
ABBMaodniiaHlDaocoaeaqrftoaeaidiiilBMiaatoaoihir. SMkCDSAoOeewabe
|i»« a tool HMOS «f tadi «■ «■ be «eM OB tkh Uitfive wkhooi Ai fiBBtMleM of OM^
naeuali k ^ariflB aaoDaB (^Stt Y& <BOl
_ 3. A^BotaBwiWMB MQADMliHwiiilBmMwtfooiB edetoiBwBM taeMtt pWOMfc
'ifHiiiiwmMaoM—wiaiitte i j mnJaBufciywabna^sj^riiBBrftnay
Bi^ dbski bukid to provide Ae Mowtaf dM^ M4''i"Bd plvriiS to
ftffwiewtfbolb *i»iiMrtnto»dBndtititig EMtiijiuiil ufflwhto
166
ftnrardiBd«kiplHttABOaMafFUdOpariMbyteto2(a-Sl4-0051 MlBvttaM ^ •
12niBSTMfaadv.MnfcM. ParhdhttktMdintoBihniildihoiBdirisihinmiai
ukphOM « bMp« ■■*« cfi petal dTeoaiacl «to ca be taKhad « Soid^; Mb* 24 lAv
UPM BSr. ta tti t««« tti* Am «• iqr cftnpi or (
>L Hiifa«: Pk— ii»iiita*cHBWfd ilaifl ■iliiiof^dhaktMii<|fcriiiirilMti« TIta
aa« iMladt te aflkflriiid teM Imi^ a brakdofim br peritei or qvBBAtaX te ante or
itaff on boirf, ite aoobar orwaarfv ad a bnaMoav or whan a vaoKiaB an fa tfat W^
pneaHL AhoBahid«pnjaeladBOO%fbrAonporideH«ba«itktadblaadaaaateattor
U» tea Madad t» OM^tata da pnnn ftr te raariidar of tt* VBoat poaUooL
Dbcan te peadbia aaAadiMtidia th« dtaofo aaay na to flB naadM aad^er aaaiite
aaflag naadi #<iittaaOH Iminn iliiniiiart ibom
B. FaoBtiaaanaBBnat: (9*«faa30KiaenantanffiiAcDaadabo«abthadHBietBnat
daao&a the Bttnn oTsvaalad un af anaot fteOdaa «» aeoe^Bodaa than adAiooal arft
CBO im aif ta w wtm, a^ nil i it hnun and aa^iaa dad w wfc wada an waaylaa, IhatianktMad
aot taka IB aoaans tha eoat of cnaHfaf Oa wade heuB oTtha aan(sX than wi b« fladad bjr
HQAONMeorOai to David loaaabait, BswavartothaadaathatthMaeonnabaidartifiad
oraadmnadthiythoiddbatadBdBd. .
Each diaBiciihoHU ain aaianwhaf^ bcq^ aiy^sBMBa tBBv nyba to
utduy. For flaBplaf A^rpnoHBvvtiiynuulOB^Mamt
•oaadadkoDnkaackl
MaMaHL ■
E. PraUaBn: Haandanribafa nw Mo tail aiydMhiiMa%BudtMaMo>wittMa> that aach
&BtiBi ia apakaeiat AH aay aol hm abaadr baaa addnaaMl aad ai^paaAla aotaioa yaa
uay wuB to neoHnaBK BBBylaa: ipartnnpnhlMiWBhAPy a^wynwR wBcamfm
Jim pina ■BaawwnAaba^fcrtbwadphatoba i
tCOAwabanfrindto^
■Ai)b]PAa«id«fIYM.
167
OFFICE OF THB DEFOTX XTTOKKSY GEHEMOi
n.8. DBVASTHZU^ OF JXISTZCe
WASHIMGTOH, O.C.
1%
FXCSIMZLB TSAMSMXSSIOM /SHEBT
Fax #: ( ) .!il^:ifl^20__ Volc« f: ( )
ROM: Gerri L. Ratliff , Counsel to the Deputy Attorney G eneral
Office of the Deputy Attorne y General Room «421S-^
U.S. Department ot Justic e. Main Justice Building
Washington. S.C. 20530
FAX » : (202) S14-907'; Voice %: (202) 514 - 3392
:H-5 T?J>lNSMISSION COSTAIMS '' SHEETS IMCLUDIMG THIS SHEET
Nc-ie -s) :
are nissing, pleas* call sender at the above voice nunber for rer
trarsmisslon.
II*
Wr*. r« -H>« JNS
►^•H»fTPk K-fc^-Ko*^
k.Tl5^
«L»-U5«a.V>^
k"«Tl' »»^
«»t»>*">V
^» 4^*-
D.stvV)*- I5r'»<?«>r3.
"^Iv^^A
fi*r*lf
tfk ««su:«<»
4*^-»- i
.^>«ita. su>'«
168
Subject Citizenship USA ^ I Dim
MAR 26 1996
2^.
Edward McEIroy Fiom Office of the
District Director. New Yodc Deputy Commissioner
Brian Penyrnan
Actiag District Director, Chicago
Walter Cadman
District Director, Miami
"i
Thomas Schiltgen _^
District Director, San Francisco
Richard Rodgcrs
District Director. Los Angeles
In the interest of augmenting our current efforts to ftiminatr the backlog of luxunlizKdon
applications under Citizenship USA and its designation as a retnvenDon laboratory, I am delegating
full authority to you to determine arkd utilize the most appropriate. e9q>edieiit methods to recruit and
hire temporary employees for this purpose.
F'in^i"g ]lKrTi**ir The five primary target districts participating in the Citizenship USA
initiative are allocated fiiading increases, as displayed on th* worksheets at Attachment 1 . These
enhaneements represent a 20 peicem increase over current Natnralizadon and Information and
Records program fimcfing levels already provided to the district offices in their base Fiscal Year (FY)
96 budgets, as weU as that provided tfaiou^ the FY 96 Exams Fee Reprogtamming.
Flgiritiilit v in Spend iny Each'of yoQ has disGTCtiaaary aodiarity to switch funds in your
naturalization budget between PS&B and OE lines, as needed, tq accomplish iidtiative goals and
objectives. Plane note that the regional offices wiHoontimiB to hold PSftBfimds on your bdudl
Regional staff will rxfmtc any necessary transactions tat this purpose x^mo your notice.
District Dfaectocs dwuld develop operatintt plans to achieve the stated'goals and objectives
of Citizenship USA. Pte^e stibmit copies of these plans to the Regioital Directors and the HQ
Citizenship USA project office (or dwir leftreace;.
Page 2
District Ditecton
169
2?.
Hiriny: The objective is to hire Additional, tempotaiy District Ai^udications Officers, GS-
S/7/9, and AppKcations Clerics, GS-4/5, as quiddy as possible. Consider unng shift woiK oveiiime,
and other altenutivea. You should d ftwrninB the specific n u mbers of employees or contracted cleAs
your rnhaivwrt budget will pennit.
It should be noted that district offices are not audwrized to convert any temporary positions
into pennaoent positions. Do not allow Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) considerations to constrain
your recruiting and hiring of temponiy personoel in support of this initiative. Should you have
available resources (PS&B or GE), you may exceed your FTE ceilings. The Office of Budget has
detennined that in die event that the INS were to extted its FTE ceiling in FY 96,,tbe Department
of Justice and INS would ensure that these FTE were covered.
•t
It is inqterative that you begjn recruitment at once. Appointments to dwse Citizenship USA
positions should not exceed 6 months, however, the appointments may be extended at a later date.
Based on our review, you may want to staff positions using one or a combination of the following
options:
a • detailing employees fiom other Federal agencies;
b - hiring leen^iloyed annuitants with waiw of annuity of&et;
c • using District resources coupled wiA e^^edited procedures fornew temporary hires;
d • requesting Adminislzative Center support coupled with expedited procedures; ot
e - using Office of Personnel Management (0PM) support servicea;
Steps and '-■tifwtg^ timetables for options c-« above are listed in Attachment 2. Funding
for OPMrecrmtmentsaviceswiQba provided eenirally by Headqpatten. Representatives &om the
National P erfbimau ce Review team are exploring avnlabiliqf of noo-ieiinbuisable details fiom other
Federal acencies to augment the immber of petsonndists you nuty need for dus project.
Prog Teatinf : To ejqiedilB drug testing under the Citizeoshv USA project, the contactor
win provide you with (be kits and custody documents to be pvcn to sdectees. You can tbea scad
the iattvidnl ^ncity to titra d aslgpa fd collection site, wfaidt eliminates trying to locatt the
se te ctees after dieyleawe your office. See Attaduneitt 3 for more details.
Pwwmiigl gepnri^ A spadal sacority process win be used to screen appUcauls for ills
tenpoiKy Ditttiet A^oAeadeu OfEoer and Applkal&ins Cleik positians, la tfaeae ptooedores, ite
District teedva and reviews tbs requiied secuiiy package. The security ptdofa will eontaia a
aaoaiiy ftim ($F46 or SF4SF) and OP-30fi, and two SF-S7 A fiagapiiBi ^aris, which tiic DisBtet .
will jnaaediatelycoaipkl e f or cari mV clt c and fbiwarf to HQ Security for proeaaa&n. TheDlnkt
wOl icialu a copy of tna saconiy fbm and con|iiete the Tmpioymcitf and pmunal icnicuee fncfta
(widdnlOdiQrs). Baaed oa the jecdpi of the security form and fingatprittt charts frant.thelXstikt,
170
Pages
District Diiecton
IS".
HQS«urilywffleM«lb.ipi4fc«tiBioPERSECS.coiiiptetetcwdacheek. request FBI ehecki.
aDdn^aMaaOPMbadcpaiiiidiovcsdgBiaa. TlieDistriawUl notify HQSecuriiy of the lesulti
of the envloyiaeia ad pcaooal nte«m dw^et.- If ta of the ibove dMda an &vonMe; UO
Security vrOItiotlfy the Wstifath-awihferhM beat epiwwed. and the
findotorfeniptoyTiieaaiidsetaa«Bta^oprtluty(EOD)datB.Thb«ntliei)re^
widdn 10 caleadar dqrl No appHcaw tiiay be grMted Security EOD qjprovil imtil juceesiful
co nqtletJ onofanphuaofdicwiimptDcas^ U, review ofsecari^ form (SF- 86 or SF-SSP) FBI
fingnpriittchedccnttehedcandeiivlaynNataiidpenaaalicftreBceschedcs. Attadiment4fiiny
describes tb^ security procen.
Canlnfling Ollt Offices thould tut conttact out for these Adjudicstion Officers without
ftoTher notice.
If you have say questions, poinu of contact aie Budget (Field Operations) -Joe Moore
(202) 303-46S9; Personnel - Nancy Weiss (202) 514-0*96; and Security - Gloria Scott
(202)514-4985. ^
. OLyU
ChrisSole
Dqiuty Commisrioaer
Anafdnnents
oe: Bagienal Dizecton
171
2f.
{§§§§§
! 2 % ?" I 3
i|r
§§§§§"
i i 8 8- 8
11
§§§§§§
i 1 1 1 § §
I
fi
«l
12
s
|i
I
^1
1^)5.
;f8'
II
^81
mm
^mm
mm
172
Auehor: Albert Cora at OVraOTCS
Oat*: 3/27/96 2:SS PM
2r.
waa that $10 bat about Kally QlrlsT I'm having trouble raawabaring thac pare
oC It.
Tot Albart Oora, Blalna^C. KaBarck. bob atona at npr • CCMUn..
Laurla Lyons at npr • CCMAZI.
eei '
Proax doug farbrothar at npr • CCMAIL
Datai 01/26/96 11:00:00 PM
Subject: INS
Today C hrta Salea delegated hiring authority to the five cities and
— mdreas ed their budgets by 20%. She also atreamllned th e background
clearance proceaa aome but atill anticipatea a itcnth ana a Mit to two
months to get people on board.
At the same time, ahe exoreaalv prohibited the moat promising way we ha d
ot getting good interviewers on board fast -- u aing temporary^servlce
•a genciea (like Kelly girla ) . We found aome that IgteHtllH 1ft iuppiylng
Voung lawyers -- bright young people %rtwse records are clean enough to
have recently passed the bar. Her lawyer was concerned that tula la too
much a ■govamnental function* to use contractors. I can think of several
waya around that problea.
If this were the early days of reinvention, I'd recoamend IM S for a haaxaer
~award7 "" B ut it is the %«anina aonths of the first terra and 1 atlli aai r-t
- thUK tne city < i <r-mt^r^ t.-.^ »,.,»^|K f-^mmAr^fQ An the lob. The more thev
ha ve to contend with ^'t ilttv^^'^* *'tn fewer eitlxena they'll produce,
sorry, Blalaie, ynu ow< ■■ 11 n
I reconne nd that you ask Porta Melssner to give the five city mana gers -•
""experience d SKSs every one -- the authority to decide; .
wne tner or not to use tenp aervlce s
- nowmich background checking to d o on their people
- whic h "iHS rolea and reqa should be'wtlve d.
I'm meeting with other agency managers in tA and San Francisco this we e k,
trying to get them to dooate people. I'll let you know how that goea.'
173
Z'\.
doug farbfothaf at npr 9 CCMAIL
OSn 9/98 09:43 AM
To: Oab Smith
ce:
Subjact: R«: R*|21: INS
W€w Forward Item:
Promt M.berc Gore at OVPtiOTES
D«C«: 1/28/96 7:03PM
To: doug farbrocher at NPR
Subjact: Re: Re(2l: IMS
New Text Item: Re: Re(2) : INS
We'll explore it. Thanks.
To: Albert Gore
cc: Elaine C. Kamarcic, bob stone at npr • CCMAIL, Laurie Lyons at
npr • CCMAIL
From: doug farbrother at npr • CCMAIL .
Datat 03/28/96 03:31:00 AM
Subject: Re (2] : INS
New Text Item: Re: INS
N o air, the bet wa« not ju«t about Kelly qirl«. I had bet Bla ine that IH S
tteadgtt arter« would not gWe their — negere In IiO« AngeXee, San FraBclaco.
ehtemna. Haw Tor fc, and Miami en ough a uthority, in general, to make m e
contident thev could produce > m ix xion new cltixene befor e election day.
Onfortunately, I wae right . \ ' : —
Whet thefiTe city nanagera need ia coa^lete authority to' waive any IMS
rule, provided they atay within the law. That's not at risky as it might
sound. The people in charge o£ the five cities are very experienced and
very conservative. Z couldn't get them to take big chances if Z used a
gun.
The kind oC broad delegation Z want has precedenti GSX and Co^aarea have'
both given that, authority to their Reinvention Labs -- and not a single,
thing has gone wrong.
Here's the sort oC thing that could go right if ZHS would give its-
front line managers that authority.
- They could get workers on the job gulcklyt they ce«ald run a 'help
wanted' ad in the local paper, interview
and hire people on the spot, start training them the next day,, and
simultaneously run a quick National Agency Check on them to see Ifi they
have a record. That is precisely what the National Archives* s Federal
174
2^.
...^ ..U01.C •Btpioyaaa handl* th« vary •■•• IMS ClXaa
in th« vary aaMa bulldiag with fcha CMS oparatlon aouth oC LX.
Bu t IMS haadquartara la attH tnaiatlno oo a hiring an d elaaranea procaaa
tha t ~wm taka wall cvar a aonth to aat pa opla an »»a«gy -• -btm Lh«y Bt^n
to do background Invaatlgationa juat liteo tha Datanaa Daaart— a> ^Ml frtr
€0 9 aaerat elaaranea •• Inraatlgationa that won't bo CLniahad until afitoc
Cha projoet la eeaplata and tho paepla aro ott tha rolaa •- InTaatlgationa
that eoa^ thouaanda oC dollars aaeh that could bo apont proeaaalng
eltlzana.
Spaad in hiring and elaaranea la a vniT BZO doal baeauaa IMS la
axparlanclng high attrition in thaaa taaporary joba.
- Local managara could chooaa to uaa taap aarvleaa (hera'a tho Kally
Girla) . Contracta ara alraady in placa, and good, rallabla paoplo-eould
ba on tha job in a faw daya. Kvan 'inharantly govammantal funetiona,*
Ilka cltlzanahlp datanlnationa can ba handlad by contract wockara undar
the propar auparvialon.
- Tha Clva city managara could atop waatlng tlaa and s>anpowar following
obsolata cagulationa. For axaapla, IHS raga raqulra that avary
naturalization cartlficata ba Xaroxad and a hard copy put in tha arehlvad
£ila, avan though a computar racord axlata. Hara'a anothar: clarka hava to
kaap a handwritten ladgar of avary graancard that' a collactad at tho
awaaring-in caraaoniaa, avan though tho carda ara ahraddad and. again,
thara la a coaiputar racord. Z'va hoard lota oC axaaploa Ilka thaao from
tha field managara and dozana mora would aurfaea iC thoy had authority to
change thinga .
Tha way it la now, to gat rallaf from obaoloto ruloa, tho flold maaagora
hava to play 'Mother may Z?* with haadquartars -- and tho anawor la ae
often 'No, you may not.* that they avmntually give up.
- They could do aoma aiaplo automation. For axampla. aaeh naturalisation
cartlficata haa a photo gluod to It, eaboaaod by hand (Ilka a notary
public aeal) , and ataapad with Doria Kalaanor'a algnatura. That all. takes
a lot of time, money, and manpower that could bo devoted to Interrlowing
appllcanta. But headquarters la alow to adopt digital photoa (like you
have on your driver' a lieenae) and they won't permit Doria 'a aignaturo to
be digitized ao that it eaa bo laaar printed instead of ataapod on tha
eartifieataa. Lots of modara technology eoold bo locally grafted to tho
centrally prograamod system If headquartera would allow it.
I^ c ould go oa. But tho point is that, unless wo blast TtKM he« |jam»»-*'«r«
" "ToSao from thoir grip om tho fron tllao managors. wo aro golaa ''-^ hlTi *T*Y
t oo many peop le still waiting tor citisonshxp in Wcryombor.
I can't make Doris Malasnor delegate broad authori ty to hor flold
managers. Can youT
50.
175
UUU9 lararoUMT at npr 9 CCMAIjL
09/19/9* Of :32 AM
To: 0«b SoWth
ce:
Subiaet: In cas* w« doo't eannaet by phona.
Maw Forward It— i
-............^.-.................^ Forwardad -----------------•---------.......
Proai doug CaxbrotlMT at npr
Datat 3/39/9C 13t37PM
•Tot KlalxM C. Kaa»rck at lOVjOvtf
*To: bob atona at npr
Sub j act: In caaa wa don't eonnact by phona.
Maw Taxt Ita«! Taxt_l
hara ara two idaaa:
To blunt any charga tha t wa ara running a c ltlienship/Cllnton voter mill .
' 1 am worxing witb tha FBI to find a way co tighten up the ridiculoualy
" l ooaa iingarprinc cn aoc ayacaa, i.e. INS doesn't know wno'a prlnr»~thay
hava. tha prints ara ottan too aaudged for the FBI to read, and It»S alaply
" aaaumaa that avarything ta okay it thay. hear nothing trom VtiL (umeU la
90% ot tha tin>a>«. A breakthrough hara will loolc goo d to the anti-aliim
lobb y.
Kath ar that havlag — app— r te ba working against Doria, put ma t o work
" forliirl Hav Chris 8l a« into an6Char job (Ilka Deputy Dirac tor~T5r
-P WariM IB CMWai JBa kkkM mm tba IMS Deputy Coaml aaionar.
■ n6m thar». I coMld do ■ar*. t atT^Ti *nd I could a6LV« CRa at rporfc
probl— toow '■ -
176
»rlertty'r' iioraal
TO I Dou9 rarbrothar
CC: Blalna C. Kamarck ae e0P_0VP
Sub j ace I Ra: INS
-. ... ... . Maaaaga Coataata
Si.
yaa-.ualaaa Dori» cooMa to aaa you aa har paraon. or ualaaa ah* gata appeintad
•abaaaader to Ruritanla
Raply Saparator
Sub j act: INS
Author; doug farbrothar at npr
Data: 4/1/9S 7:51 PM
I jnada a ewa prograaa gatting tha INS oteicaa aoaa halo from g eh.r
aqanctaa in LX a nd FrUco, but thay ara attll gattlng way too nnich
inr^rt«r»n<;» ^rom hg4 ^^^um^^.«I». <u» i going to hava Icaap dragging that
h«H and chain rpward tha Ilniah llna? ' *~
177
Author: Terrance M O'Reilly at HQBOR
Date: 5/29/9S 11:47 AM
Priority: Normal
TO: Jim C Booe at WRO-003
TO: Lani A Camilli at ERG- 002
TO: David L Roarlc at SRO-001
Subject: Potential Detailees from the Dept. o£ Energy
Message Contents
31
Our friends at the NPR have been out recruiting Qovemment agencies
^for empioveea who are either oeing rifcq or are planne d to be part of
a furlough. Under any such plan, INS would picK up aalarv eoac u6 CO —
"our hignest joumeymem grade in CUSA and INS would pick up detail
cost. The giving agency would would continue to pick up benefit cost
and any salary cost over and above what we would pay.
The Department of Energy is going to be furloughing people this year
and they have come up with 57 volunteers (both clerical and officer
types) . They have given their preferences as to where they would like
to be detailed and most are on the west coast.
We have also had inquiries from the Selective Service regarding making
people available, although there have been limited discussions nothing
has been agreed upon.
This E-Mail is an informal communication to see if amy of the regions
may need more detailees. We could also bring these people on board
and let the Service Center detailees go back to their duty station.
Please provide me with your thoughts.
Terry
178
Memo for President Clinton
Subject: Improving Service for Citizenship Applicants
32.
You asked us to expedite the naturalization of nearly a million legal aliens
who have applied to become citizens. INS had begun last year gearing up to
process the growing backlog of applicants but, largely because of
bureaucratic delays, has nek made much of a dent in it yet
Members of my National Performance Review staff have been working to
remove the bureaucratic roadblocks so that INS offices in Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Miami can quickly double or triple their
production. Examples of the roadblocks include: hiring procedures that
were takinsj months followed by employee background investigations that
were taking more months (we have now speeded it all up some),
prohibitions against using temp agencies, lime-wasting procedures requiring
paper records that duplicate computer records, cumbersome centralized
control over computer systems, the list goes on. Hardly any of the
roadblocks are statutory; we have the administrative authority to remove
most them.
But. I NS Comm i ssioner Doris Meissner warns that if we are too aggres sive
at removing the roadblocks to success, we might be publicly criticiz ed for
runninj^ a pr6-Democrat voter mill and even risk having Congress stop us.
I ndeed, many of the roadblocks originate with her own INS staff -- people
who might well complain if we waive the regulations and procedure s they
have created and followed for years — people whose complaints might se em
credible to the publi c.
I see two options:
Option 1. To gel anywhere near a million applicants naturalized before the
summer is out. we are clearly going to have to force some serious
"reinvention" on INS. I believe we can reduce — hut not eliminate — the
risk of controversy over our motives bv aboointing one of our proven N PR
reinventors at j P«?n"'V '*^^ Cnmrgii^inn-r t^*'* ■—"■»"» Hopmy f puld be
useful elsewhere in the administration ~ with B arrv McAffirv. for example.)
As pan of the otTicial INS management team, ou r rcinventor would ha ve
179
more direct intluence and the INS staff would be loss likely to go publ ic ^^*
with complaints than they would over the interference of an outsider.
We should be putting proven reinventors into lots of agencies anyway.
Having people who don'i "get it" in top jobs has turned out to be ReGo's
number one stumbling block..
Option 2. Our other optiorf is to avoid any controversy over speeding up
naturalization by letting the standard bureaucracy do the best it can. We
will, of course, lend whatever help we can within the system. INS will be
able to gear up production slowly, but a lot of people will still be waiting for
their citizenship papers for a long time.
I
180
To: Elaine Kamarck
Time:
14:46:24
From : Ooug Farbroth«r
Date:
Q4V10/96 ',
Subject: Microsoft Word - INSCLTN.DOC
1
Pages (including cover): 5
I
Here's my draft of the INS option paper
181
Memo for President Clinton J^»
Subject: Improving Service for Citizenship Applicants
ISo S^.rn?JI^^ *' aatumlizaUon of nearly a million legal aliens
who have appUed to become citizens. INS had begun last year eLrin-^ »«
process tl«growii,gbacklog.ofappUcantsbutJarieryb«aS^5r * P
bureaucrauc delays, has not made much of a dent in it yet
Members of my NaUonal Performance Review staff have been workinR to
remove the bureaucratic roadblocks so that INS offices in Us AngdL In
Francisco. Chicago. New York, and Miami can quickly double or S^eir
producuon. Hardly any of the roadblocks are statutory, we have the
admmistrative authority to remove most them.
But. INS warns that if we are too aggressive at removing the roadblocks to
SS"r'''\''''"'';''^*="'"'^''^'°^'^'"'"8aprlDemoc^^^^^
null and even nsk havmg Congress stop us. Indeed, many of the roadblocks
Ow regulauons and procedures they have created and followed for year^ -L
people whose complaints might seem credible to the public.
IlTL^i^ vT^*^' P"" °"^ ~'" °f *="="' controversial actions that
we could take to expedite processing. We'd like your guidance.
years of residency, basic knowledge of English and Civics, and good moral
b^T^.":.!?*"'^°^**"'"^*""^"^*°« But INS adjudicators ha^
broad lautude to mterpret those standards and decide who meets them. INS
educating- the older ones, to be more liberal.
^™^?'''.?^°"'"""^ *" '"PP™'''=^ '»' *»»« f'"' interview. Another 1 5%
'^I^'r^'^^^^^'^^^-^^^^i^h^ndCmcs longeroTbari '
15H could be appro^«l quicker if the adjudicators were more liberal.
Sl^^!!!!l!'*^.'^'™*^°**j"**'«=»'°"inay object publ^^^^ •
interference with their judgment In fact, charges that we are lowering
182
3i.
sundards appeared recently in USAToday and were the subject of Dave
Leiterman's Top Ten List: Number one question on the new citizenship test,
"Fill in the blank: U. S. _"
PHESIDEKnALGtJIDANCE: YES
No
. Other
Delegate authority to local managers: A basic cause of processing delays
in the five cities is the constant interference of INS headquarters, all with ilie
best of intentions. This problem is not unique to INS; it's one of the key
challenges of government reinvention. Examples of the INS roadblocks
include: hiring procedures that were taking months followed by employee
drug tests, fingerprint and credit checks, and in-depth background
investigations that were taking more months (we have now speeded it all up
some), prohibitions against using temp ageiKies, time-wasting procedures
requiring paper records that duplicate computer records, cumbersome
centralized control over computer systems, the list goes on.
One quick solution is to delegate to the senior INS manager^ in the fi ve riti«>»
b road authority to waive headquarters rules. It^s not as risky as it sounds.
^veral agency heads, including the Chief of Naval Operations, have
delegated that kind of authority without embarrassment or ill effects. In fact,
the five INS field managers are such experienced and conservative people
that we would have to keep encouraging them to use their new authority
boldly.
However, there will likely be criticism from the headquarters staff and their
counterparts on the Hill that 'things are out of control.*
PRHsiDnNTUi. Outdance: Yns
No
OniER
Put headquarters to work: The most immediate problem in the field is that
they doot have enough people processing the applications; each city could
183
use another 100-200 people immediatdy. Meanwhile, there are 1,800 people
in INS headquaiten, busily guiding the field.
We could detail SCO or moie of die headquaiten employees (rotating them
monthly) tote five dtia to process citiniiship applications. Thecostof
their tiavd and living allowaiaoes would be oCbet by savings from not having
to hire and do background dwcks on additional lempotaiywotken. INShaa
detailed headquaiten peopte'to the Gdd on a smaller scale in the past
The advantage is getting people on the job without the delays of recruiting,
hiring, and background checking. The dowiuide is that enough headquarters
people might not want to go. And. of course, those that do go would leave
their important headquarters work temporarily uiKk>ne.
PRESiDEhfTiAL Guidance: Yes
No
11
Other
Use legal services temp agencies: There are teihp agertcies that specialize
in supplying youi\g lawyers. We could procure their services quickly
through temp agency contracts already in place. They would be an excellent
source of bright, ettergetic workers of good character. As contractor
employees, they could not make the firul decision granting citizenship —
that is a governmental fimction that must be done by a government
employee. But they could interview the applicanta. test their knowledge of
English and Civics, check the FBI reporf^ and make a recommendation that
would be approved by a government employee. That process could handle
the vast majority of applicanta who qualify easily.
To use legal services temp agencies effectively, we would have to \vaive
OPM rules that limit duration U> three months for the total projea and 45
days for any individual lawyer, federal employee uniotu are sensitive about
theserules. We would also accept the lawyers' recent admission to the bar as
evidence of their tiustworthiness. and skip the usual checks INS does on new
employees.
PREsnxKiiALOtaDAicE: Yes •
No
184
Other
Make more money available: If we succeed in gearing up the process
dranutically soon, we will need to make more money available before the
end of the fiscal year. The cost of processing citizenship is covered by
application fees, not appropriated fiinds. But Congress still gets in on the
act The fees go into a receiving account (which now contains STK million)
and cannot be transferred int^ a spending account until INS has notified
Congress and waited IS days. At least, that is the legal requirement The
practice has been to wait as long as it takes to gain the written approval of
the appropriation committees; the last time took four months. Requiring that
kind of Congressional approval of Executive Branch decisions was ruled
unconstitutional by ihe Supreme Court decades ago, ironically in the case of
Chadda vs. INS
If we need more money quickly, we could begin spending 1 5 days at\er
nolitying Congress of the transfer. But breaking with the unconstitutional
tradition of waiting for committee aproval, which is the common practice
between all agencies and their appropriation subcommittees, will really raise
hackles on the Hill. Retaliation would probably take the form of stringent
new controls in next year's appropriation bills. We can fight that kmd of
thing with line item vetoes but creatiw minds on the Hill will search tor
some way to get even.
PRESnMvNTIAI. GUID.\.NCT.-. YKS '
No
Other '
3Z.
185
Improving Service for Citiixii«hip Appllointi
51.
ou oslccd us to expedite (he naturalization of nearly a million legal aliens who have
applied to become citizens. INS had begun lost year gearing up to process the growing
backlog of applicants but, largely because of bureaucratic delays, has not mado much of a
dent in it yet.
Members of my National Ferformancc Review staff have been working to remove the
(I- bureaucratic roadblocks so that INS offices in I-os Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New
■^ York, and Miami can quickly double or triple their production. Hardly any of the
roadblocks are statutory, we have the adminislraiivc authority to remove most them.
But, INS warns that if we are too uggres.sive at removing the roadblocks to better service,
we might be publicly criticized for running a pro-Democrat voter mill and even risk
having Congress stop us. Indeed, many of the roadblocks originate with the INS staff —
people who might well complain ifwc waive the regulations and procedures they havo
created and followed for years — people whose complaints might seem credible to the
public.
This paper describes the pro.s and cons of Cvc controversial actions that we could take to
improve service. We'd like your guidance.
1, Delegate anthoiily to local managcn: A basic cause of delays in the five cities is the
constant interference of INS headquarters, all done with the best of mtentions. This
problem is not unique to INS; it's one of the key challenges of government reinvcotlon.
Examples of the INS roadblocks include: hiring procedures that were taking months
followed by employee drug tcsLi, fingerprint and credit checks, and background
invcs(igaiion.<t tl)al woo taking more months (wu have now speeded it all up some),
prohibitions against using temp ogeneies, timC'Vmsting procedures requiring paper
records that duplicate computer records, tight control of computers, the list goes on.
One quick solution is to delegate to the senior INS managers in the five cities broad
authority tu waive hcadquaiten rules. It's not as risky as it sounds. Several agency
heads, including the Chief of Naval Operations, have delegated that kind of authority
without embairassmeol or ill effi:cts. In fact, the Ave INS field managers are such
experienced and conservative people that we would have to keep encouraging them to use
their new authority boldly.
However, there wilt likely be critici.<«m from the headquarters staff and their countetparts
on the Hill that "things are out of control."
GulDANtnt:
YE$_
NO.;_
OTHUt
186
f
2. Put headquarter* to work: The mosit immediate problem in the field is that (hey
don't have enough people processing the appliculions; each city could use another 100>
200 people immediately. Meanwhile, there are 1,800 people in INS headquarters, busily
guiding the field.
We could detail 500 or more of tic headquarters employees (rotating them monthly) to
the five cities to process citizenship applications. Tlic cost of their travel and living
Allowances would be offset by saving.^ from not having to hire and do background chocks
on additional temporary workers. INS has detailed headquarters people to the field on a
smaller scale in the post
llie ndvnntnge is getting people on the job without the delays of recruiting, hiring, and
background checking. The downside is that enough headquarters people might not want
to go. And, of course, those that do go would leave their important headquarters work
lemporurily undone.
Guidance: Yes
No
II,
Other
3. Get other agcnclet to pitch ini In the five cities where INS needs the most help, other
federal ugcncie.1 like IRS, VA, and Social Security have large numbers of employees. We
have tt.sked them to detail some of their workers to INS. So far, we haven't gotten many,
even when INS offered to pay. The other agencies all have work of their own to do.
\iyou asked the Cabinet and other agency heads, they might be more willing to detail
people to INS. Dut, we might also get accused of slowing down tax refunds, veteran*
benefits, and social security payments.
OlIIDANCC: YES
NO
OniiJt
4. Us* legal service* temp agencies: There are temp agenciex that specialize in
.supplying young lawyers. We could procure their services quickly through temp agency
contracts already in place They would bo an excellent source of bright, energetic
^ workers of gmnl character. As contractor employees, they couldn't make the decision
X granting citizenship — that is * governmental (Unction that must be done by government
employees. But they covld interview the applicants, test their knowledge of Ilnglith and
Civics, check Uie FBI report, and make a nwommemluiion that would be approved by a
government employee. That process could handle the va^ majority of af^licanl* v^
qualify easily.
187
To use legal services temp agencies cfTectively. wc would have to waive 0PM rules that
limit duration to three months for the total project and 45 days for any individual lawyer,
federal employee unions are senxJtlvo about these rules. We would also accept the
lawyers' recent admission to the bar as evidence of their trustwonhinesx, and skip the
usual checks INS docs on new employees.
Guidance Yes i_
No
32.
Other
5. Make more money available: If we succeed in gearing up the process dramatically
soon, we will need to make more money available before the end of the fiscal year. The
cost of processing citiTsnship is covered by application fees, not appropriated funds. Rut
Congress still gets in on the act The fees go into a r«c«iving account (which now
contains SIX. million) and cannot be transferred into a spending account until INS has
notified Congress and waited 15 days. At least, that is the legal requirement Tlie
practice haa been to wail as long as i( takes to gain the written approval of Iho
appropriation committees; the last time took four months. Requiring that kind of
Congressional approval of Executive Branch decisions was ruled unconstimtional by tha
Supreme Couit yean ago, ironically in the case of Chadha vs. INS.
If we need more money quickly, we couJd begin spending 1 5 days after notifying
Congress of the transfer. But breaklne with the unconstinnional tradition of waiting tor
committee aproval, which is the common practice between all agencies and their
oppropriatioa subcommittees, will really raise^iacUes on the Hill. Retaliation would
probably lake tho form of stringent new controls in next year's appropriatioi) bills. Wo
can fight that kind of thing with line item vetoes but creative minds on the Mill will
search for some way to get even.
Guidance: Yes
No
OmER
188
31.
Memorandum to the Vice President
From: Elaine
Re: Lunch with the President and INS progress
Date: April 4, 1996 ^
As you know, following on the assignment from the
President to look int o the citizenship backlog. I sent Dou g
, Farbrother~omtT5~7oad to each of the offices where the
_ backlog was most severe. He found a set of extensive
bureaucratic obstacles such as:
• hiring procedures that were taking months followed by
background investigations that were also taking months,
• time-wasting procedures that use paper records to
duplicate computer records and,
• cumbersome centralized control over computer
systems.
None of the obstacles identified were statutory; all were
bureaucratic and stemmed from a highly centralized internal
administrative system at INS.
We have concentrated on removing the internal
obstacles so that INS could hire the temporary INS agents
they were authorized by Congress to hire in January. At our
suggestion INS is:
• streamlining the full background investigation;
• using lists other than those generated by OPt^ here in
Washington in order to hire from (these lists tend to be
obsolete quickly);
• sending 5 0PM personnelists directly to the affected
cities to process the applications quickly;
With these changes INS estimates that they can get an
additional 200 agents on the job in the 5 key cities by the
third week in April.
189
S3.
In addition, INS is:
• making arrangements to hire federal workers from
other agencies. This is very important since these workers
already have security clearances and are apt to be of a higher
quality . So far IRS in San Francisco. DOE in liiinnig an <i jj 22_
Angeles, SSA in New York hay eotfered federal' employees a s
de tails, either on a full time oT~on an Qve rt Trng basis;
• moving $200,000 in extra money to each city to be
used, at the discretion of the Director, to help with the
backlog.
The most immediate problem has been getting the
agents hired that INS is allowed to hire. There is no excuse
for this other than pure bureaucratic inertia. INS has also
asked the field for plans as to how they would work to the full
capacity of their physical plant. That means seeing applicants
seven days a week and during expanded office hours
(probably 10 to 12 hour days.)
Only^bv working 7 day^ a wap.k and longer hoiira nan wf>
ho pe to make a significant pinntigh dent in the backlog that it
will show UP when it mattp>r<i
There are other, more dramatic steps that could be
taken. But as of this date, INS can't tell us the exact nature of
the backlog. We have sent Steve Butterfield over there (he
runs our data base at NPR) to redesign their system. Doug
has also come up with a list of more radical ideas to use but
these ideas are not without their political downsides. 1 had
asked Doris to prepare a decision memo to the President tha t
would list these steps and give the pros and cons . Given that
her husband has just died much of this is now up in the air.
41-503 97-7
190
ELAINE KAMARCK
'^'^^-.
I^a-cAA-ft
191
SOUTtrcRN CALIFORNIA LAJ. NETWORK
AcnvK cmzpCTnp camzaipn
•SCOC •XJNO "EVO •VOICE
T70 S. ARROYO PARKWAY, SUtTE US,
PASADENA, CALIF. 9110S
TU.«1I-$M4T74 FAX ItUU^yn
5M.
4/24/96
Etaine Kamarch
Onicc of the Vice President
Die White House
Wuhiogton DC. 20050
Etaine Kamarch.
Thank you Tor your assistance In our six month .battle to reo-eaie the Immlgraiion and /
Natural! Tation Service. Although thse is still much that needs to be dooe, your assistance has assured/
significant viaories. W ith your sup poct. ih e lAFs Active Cit'aenship Campaigp pressured INS to: ^
* streamline the hirine process ofofficcn so (hat the^.are hired locally and not through DC
* iricrease the outreach slalT from one team to three teams
* ootnmit an additional Sl.OOO.OOO. to eUffltnate the baddog
* extend \wedc day hours interviews
* initiate Saturday iDtervie««
* and reduoe the vraitlnt time for applicants from one ]«ar to sbc months.
Elltaii Kaaaitii co May 1. 199« at Our Lady of Lourdes Parish in Los Angeles. District Dirixmr
RoBcn has agreed to meet with 1000 leaden of (he Active Qtizeashlp Campaign. At that time, ACQ
leaders will ask for a commlucoit Gram Mr. Rogers to diminaic. the currou badclog of 229.000
appHcatioas by Scptonbcr 30. 1994. In a pre^oeeting. Mr. Rogers hinted that he b predispeaed to make
that public annoimconait. In rrrhangr ACC has apeed to suspad pubUc actions mless the INS docs
not hold up their side of the deal. Thl* vifltwy mAA m«n «« m«ny «« y?^ OQO ng» ettlTCTt vnriwp 111
I m Anfgte* thU NnMrmt» Ow opoatioos In Saa Fnudsoo. Chicaco and New Yock report the Same
commitment being made: WtrinMlly wmg «nn nnt> will hemnw drfrm* in llme fhr the rigertow
Mtieh is Still left to be done. The lAFs Aolve Cltlzoiship Campaicn will ontinoe Its eObrts to
insure that applicatianssufaminedbdbrcluly 4, 1996.wiUbeadjudlcated IntimctovoteiaNovattbcr. In
addition. IWS ftlTiei«h h»we tlt»Ar » rgry iwf l« W«Alnpnw ITT fnr m »H<tifinw«l •)«>/. miwr Ti>€r«»rg In
deal with the bKklog. ACC (opporu dUs requesL I request your assistance in tfab area with
CommissoRV MdisMr.
Sincerely younc
Fr. Mlguet Vega
Direetor Active Chixendiip Campaign
192
35. ^
Subject Naturalization Process Changes
Ottc
MAY - I I9S6
'^° AJl Regional Directors f"" OflBce of Examinations
All District Directors
All OflBcers-in-Charge
All Service Center Directors
AllADDEs
Since naturalization was identified as a major reinvention effort in April, 199S, the Service
has undertaken a complete review of the naturalization process and identified areas which can be
streamlined to increase our ability to provide more efficient and effective customer service to
naturalization applicants.
To achieve maximum results in the quickest time period and to improve the quality of our
work, we have devdoped guidelines fisr streamlining the naturalization process. These guidelines are
based on numerous cUscussions and meetings of Service field staf^ regional offices and Headquarters
as well as outside subject experts, community-based organizations, and focus-groups. The
recommendations of new ideas and innovative procedures that have resulted firom such discussions
have been tested at various Citizenship-USA pilot sites with remarkable results. In view of the
successes of the pilot sites, our desire is to expand these new initiatives Servicewide to all offices.
The attached memorandum highlights these guidelines for the streamlined naturalization
process. Most of the action items can be implemented immediately. Others that have major long-
term effects may take longv to implement. Service personnel are encouraged to follow these
guidelines and modify them as necessary, in keeping with the stated goals of the initiative as well as
to fit the particular needs of each office. However, to ensure consistent implementation of general
policy guidelines, district offices are required to notify the Office of Field Operations (HQOPS) and
the Benefits DivisioQ (HQBENX thtbugh the appropriate channels, of any modification that they wish
to undertake.
It should be noted that in the search for these solutions, every effort has been made to ensure
consistent treatment of all applicants and to protect the integrity and dignity of the natunlization
process.
auis D. Crocettr^
Associate Commisaoner
Attachment
193
55".
NATURALIZATION PROCESS STREAMLINING INITIATrVTS
A. SUMMARY CHART
B. CONTENTS
L Appiicatioo
IL Adjadicatioa
nL Processing
IV. Oath Ceremonies
194
>r
195
I
III
HII
ml
1 1 •
o 6 « B 'V
I I
I
8-3
rill
3-1
11
1^1
8 8|
Is tJ
IIS
l||
fill
III;
I
8
id.
11 -I
S.».B ft
61
III
lit
S > o
u I S
P 8 2
3r
196
^r
197
-3>
I
198
3$
PartL Application
No. I
Ketping Odr Customers Informed
A vital part of the stepp«d-up Citizenship USA Initiative is to help our customers readily
obtain current and accurate information on the naturalization process.
To assure that this priority is met, the Headquarters Benefits Division is developing the
following itenu that can be disseminated to field ofBces, community-based organizations (CBO) and
other entities, and in some cases, individuals seeking information about the naturalization process:
• Our naturalization pilot project is finalizing a poster stressing that applicants in the
four key districts (LA, MLA, CHI, and NYC) must now file their N-400 at an
appropriate Service Center, applicants are encouraged to call the 1-800 lumber for
forms and information about where to file the N-400. Tlie poster will be distributed
to field ofiSces, beginning in April 1996. In addition, a brocbure will be padcsged fix
printing and dissemination during the third quarter.
• News releases and flyers atuwering the most frequently asked questions on the
naturafization process are being prepared fi>r distributioa to field offices, CEOs, and
other entities during the third quarter, for example, questions range fiom how
someone applies for citizenship, where forms can be obtained and where to file an
applicatioiL The news releases are intended to provide accurate information to the
public, prompting the submission of complete applications fiom persons eligible to
seektfaebenefiL The Hradquafters Public Information Office win prepare the news
releases and pamphlets and distribute them to the field offices, which, in turn, will
provide the items to the general public and local CBOt. The Customer Service
Brincfa of HQBEN will assist in mailing the information mitmals to the CBOs.
X99
35.
Part L Appiicatioa
No. 2
N-400 Fonn Revuion
The Service has detennmed that the current naturalization application form, N-400, is too
complex, confiising and needs revisioa As a result, a working group is revising Form N-400 to make
it more user friendly. The revised Form N-400 will incorporate Forms N-600 and N-643 and include
data collection for voter regLstraiioa We are currently investigating the possibility of using the N-400
data to produce a card size naturalization certificate and to support the Dq)artment of State in the
issuance of United States passports. We are also reviewing the possibility of including an option
which would allow the applicant to request a supplemental citizenship card. These are policy issues,
however, which must be fully researched and addressed by the General Counsel's ofSce before
implementatioii. ~ '
HQADN is making an eSbtt to ensure that the new N-400 will contain instructions that are
explicit, dear, and easy to understand. Applicants will also be informed of what documents to bring
with them to their naturalization interview to avoid uimeoessaiy delays. Revision of the N-400 will
be expedited for earliest availability. HQADN is taigeiing August, 1996 for publication of the revised
N-400 for public comments.
200
s^.
PartL ApplicatioQ
No. 3
Filing N-400 Aoplicationi
(A) Direct Mail
The Service has detennined that filing naturalization applications (N-400) at the distria ofiSces
results in ineffective custonter service and ineOBdent use of available resources. On January 3 1, 1996,
the Service implemented Direct Mail in the Los Angeles, Miami, New York and Chicago Districts
as part of the Citizenship USA initiatives. Use of Direct Mail will reduce processing times for
adjudicating N-400s and enable the Service to provide applicants with more accurate information
regarding their case status an efficient and expeditious manner. Direa Mail will also reduce the
number of in-penon visits to local Service offices, thereby improving the Service's ability to provide
better customer service.
HQADN is in the process of expanding the Direct Mail program to include otheT types of
applications, such as 1*765, 1-90, and I-48S for employment based applicants. These Direct Mail
expansions will lessen dau entry and processing burdens for all district offices and enable tfaem to
shift available resources to meet the detnands for quicker interviews and more fivquent oath
ceremonies. The expansion ofthe Direct Mail Program is a continuing effiirt HQADN is working
diligently towards eariy implementation of fiill Direa Mail (DM m) and to convert all offices to
CLAIMS. In DM m, all applications, with a tew exceptions, will be mailed directly to Service
Centers for receipting, data entry, and ac^ucficatiaa Only those applications that require an interview
will be referred to the field offices for decisions.
(B) 2-D Bar coding N-400.
As a first step toward electronic filing, the Service is piloting the 2-D barcode and optical
scanning of the N-400 application throu^ our naturalization pilot project in southern California.
IRM and Westem Rfgion Customer Service staff are training personnel at a Los Angeles community-
based organization (CBO) to key in infonnation on N-400s with newly developed software featuring
the 2-D barcode. The CBO training will also help INS identify and correct problems in the barcode
and scanning software. In na^fspnt, the CBO~will begin filhig the bar-coded applications directly
with the Westem Service Center where the forms will be scanned optically.
This streamfioed Direct Mail system is intended to reduce initial derical data entry, wUch will
cut production costs, decrease keying errors, and expedite the application process. Interviews will
be scheduled and conducted at appropriate local office sites.
To enhance the development of a practical, expanded 2-D barcode system, a Users Group of
INS staffand our customen is being formed to implemem the new process at other Service Centers
during the fourth quarter aitd make the 24) barcode specifications available to potential usen.
201
35.
Part n. Adjudication
No. 1
Informing Applicantt of Documentation Required At Inteiview
Cuirently, naturalization applicants are rescheduled for interviews if they M to provide
Adjudications OfBcers with documentation necessary to condua the interview. Often the
naturalization applicant could have provided the required documentation if he or she had prior
knowledge that such documentation was necessary. Advising applicants for naturalization prior to
interview of the documentation they may be required to submit at the interview can reduce the
number of "re-interviews."
In addition to the documentadon ^>ecified n the instructions on the N-400 application,
applicants should be advised to bring the documents noted on the attachment to their intdView.
OfiSces are urged to begin sending naturalization applicants this documentation list with the
notice of interview as soon as possible. OfBces that are not on NACS can attach this documeotatiao
Gst (firectly to the notice of interview. Iliose offices that are currently on NACS may either <iw«H the
attached notice with the NACS mailer or separately. In the meantime, HQBEN is diligently
investigating the possibility of having the itotices of interview Qnduding the Gsting of recpured
documentation) printed at the Service Adjudication Centers. Hopefiilly, such notices of interview
could be completed in the next six to eight weeks.
202
Part EL Adjudication
No. 1 Attachment
35.
Please briof your ADea Regiftnliaa Card (pcrmuent reaidcot card) and/or otli«r travel documeatf with you to your
interview. In idditioo, expenence has shown thai a agmficant number of naturalization interviews have to be continued, ind
ihe pei3on brxigbl back fix a seoood intOMew, because additional documeota are needed. The following checklist is desimed
tohelpyoudetaTnmewhattobnngtoyouriniaview. We recommeod you complete and bring the checklist and the issoci tied
documents with you to your interview to avoid the need for a second interview.
I . Is your oiTcnt name different from that shown on your Alien Registratioo Card? Q Yes D No
(If Ye*, brmg a copy of the maxriage certificate, divorce decree, court order or otber
document that changed your name )
2. Have you passed a standardized naturalization test? q Yes O No
(If Yes, bring the orJF""' test score aoace.)
Did you attend for at least 2 years and graduate from a U.S. high school or receive a O Yes Q No
bachelor's, master's or doctoral degree from a U.S. based college?
(If Yet, bring a copy of your diploma.)
Since you became a permanent resident, have you been outside the U.S. for 12 or more O Yes QNo
months on a single (np7
(If Yes, bring evidence to establish that you rrtiinfd your rcsideooe, such u mortgage or
lease ageemems and your U.S. tax returns (the orignal plus a photo copy) for that period)
Since you became a permanent resident, have you been outside the U.S fix a total of 24 Q Yes DNo
months in the past S years (or 1 2 tTKnthi if you are applying fix naturtlizatiaa less than S
years aAer you became a permanent rrtidmt)?
(If Yes.bring your passport and a list of any trips not shown oo your applicatioa Ii>clude tbe
dales ypu left and duration of each trip.)
Have you bees anested within the S years before you filed for naturalizatioa. or sioce you O Yes Q No
filed? (If Yea, bring a certified copies ofcourt orders or final dispositioDS fix each such
arrest)
7. Have >>Du ev<r been arrested and charged with a fdooy?
(If Yes, bnng a certified copies of court ordgs or final disposltiops for each lucfa Brest.)
8. Within the S years be£xe. or since you have filed your applicatico, have you ever failed to
pay any re<;uired alimony cr child support on tiiae?
(If Yes, brin^ copies of canceled rhrrjci. mooey order receipts and bank dnfis showing your
payment record, along with copies of any court or guvqiim egt orden, ordering or relating to
the required payment)
Since you became a permanectresideat, halve you ever failed to file a fidenl. state or O Yes QNo
local income tax return, or do you uui e ully owe back taxes, or have you ever '■l«'"'~< to be a
nooreadent on an incocoe tax fixm?
(If Yea, bring copies of any a a'i r . n > i ir Vrv i r relating to those ratums, and, if you did not file,
a fiill explanation why you did not file.)
10. Are you a male md did you beocote a lawful permanent resident prior to the age of 267 D Yes DNo
(If Yes, bring proof you are registered with the Selective Service, if applicable)
11. Have you been a lawful permaasntresidenoe for less than S years and did you apply fix DYes QNo
naturalizatioa based on the £kI you are married to a U.S. Citizen?
(If Ye*, bring evidence that your husband or wife is a U.S. Citizen (such as a birtfa certificata,
passport or naturalizatiancertificats)aad a copy ofyour marriage certificate: Ifyoudidnot
receive your permanent residence based on your maniage to a U. S. Citiafa, also bring
evidence Aowmg that all your prior marriages cr all your husband or wifis's pticr matiiaga
were legally terminated (such as divorce decrees or death certificates)).
HA. Are you and your U.S. Citizen spouse currently separated or fux living together? Q Yes O No
(If Yes, (y^M are not living together), bring evidence of your continued relationsfaip a*
husband and wi&, such u a oopy of your joint tax return and evidence of joint assets such is
bank tocounts and joint liabilities such as mortgages or credit cards.)
12. Didyou apply for naturalization based on your service in the U S military? DYes ONo
(Tf Yes, bring a copy of your Military Discharge Certificate. DD-214.)
203
3S.
Part EL Adjudication
No. 2
Good Moral Character
An applicant for naturalization must establish that he or she is a person of good moral
character (CMC). Although good moral character is not specifically defined, it has been interpreted '
to mean a person's adherence to the mor^l standards of the average citizen in the community in which
the applicant resides.
Distria Adjudications Officers (DAO) must make a determination whether the applicant
possesses the requisite GMC for purposes of naturalization. In making this determination, DAOs
should primarily focus on the 5-year statutory period prior to filing of the N-400 applicatioa Part
7 of the N-400, entitled Additional Factors of Elinbilitv. has 1 5 questions which contain most of the
grounds for finding a lack of GMC. In addition, DAOs should always ask the applicant the following
questions, if applicable:
1. Have you ever &iled to pay, or reflised to pay, alimony, or &iled to comply
with a court order to pay alimony?
2. Have you ever &led to pay, or refiised to pay, child support or &iled to
comply with a court order to pay child support?
If an applicant admits to having committed or been arrested, sentenced, or convicted for any
crimes or offenses in violation of the law, or if the file contains evidence of any crimes or oflFenscs,
DAOs must focus on the number and type of ofiBaoses to detennine whether the applicant lacks GMC
based on this evidence.
DAOs should note that a person will ahvsys lack GMC if, during the S-year statutory period,
he has committed one or more 'crimes involving moral turpitude* (CIMT). The most common
definition of a CIMT is 'an aa of baseness, vileoess or depravity in the private and social duties which
a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general, contrary to the accepted atul customary rule
of right and duty between man and man.' Attached is a checklist of some of the crimes -or ofienses
that fall under the CIMT categoiy. If the applicant gives an afSrmative response to any of the
questions involving CMC in Part 7 (Questions No. 8, 9, 12, and IS) or if the cases involves CIMTs,
DAOs should rt&x the applicant to a secondary officer for a traditional interview fontul.
204
CI>rr CHECKLIST
IS.
This cheddist ii designed to provide a quick reference to the types of offenses which the Board of ImmignDon Appeals
has found to be "Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude." This Ust is not exclusive and DAOs should consult with Service
counsel for more m-depth information.
Crimes Against The Person
Murder/Intentional Homicide
Voluntary Manslaughter
Homicide by Reckless Conduct
Involuntary Manslau^ta- w/ Reckless Disregaid
Attempted Murder
Kidnapping Mayhem
Assault or Attempted Murder Upoa Govemmeat
Officers
Canying a Concealed Weapoo w/ Intent to Use
Against the Person of Another
Assault w/ a Deadly Weapoo
Assault w/ Weapon Likely to Produce Bodily Harm
Interfering w/ a Law Enforwmcnt Officer w/ Use of
Deadly Force
Attempting to Obstruct/Impede the Progress of Justice
Aggravated Assault Against a Peace Officer
Crimes Against Property
Arson
Attempted Arson
B I ackmail/Extortion
Forgery
Uttering a Forged Instrument/Forged Prescriptiaa
Making False Statements of Financial Omdifion
Robbery
Embezzlement
Larceny/Theft
Grand theft
Petty Theft
Receiving Stolen Property
Concealing Assets in Bankruptcy —
Encumbering Mortgaged Property w/ Intent to
Defraud
Fraudulently Issuing deck w/ InsufBdent Funds
Frauduleatfy Issuing Worthless Check
Illegal use of ATM or Credit Cwl
Passing Forged Instrument
Attempted Fraud
Using Mails to Deftaud
Mulring Fult^ '^ tntrmmt^ in /^ivjiiifjtynl rffVvrramt
Securities Fraud
Welfare Fraud
Transporting Stolea Property
Obtaining Money by False Pretenses
Bribery
Malicious Trespass
Sexual and Family Crimes
Assault w/ Intent to Commit Abortion
Attempted Assault w/ Intent to Commit Carnal Abuse
Statutory Rape/Rape
Indecent Assault/Sexual Battery
Adultery
Bigamy
Prostitutioa
Sodomy
Gross Indecency
Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor/Sexual
Acts
Taking InrWrnt Liberties w/ a Child
Incest _ .
Oral Sexual Perversion
Crimes Against the Government
Falsely Issuing a Narcotic Prescriptioa
Ofiiaing a Bribe
Making, Passing, or Possessijog Countettfeit Coins
Conspiracy to Violate IRS Laws
Sessirities Fraud
Counterfeiting
Smugging Merchandise
Impersooating Federal Officer
False Statements/Firearm
False Stztemenls or Entries
Harboring a Fugitive
Using False Names & AjUiesaei to Violate Postal
Laws
Uttering/Selling False/Counterfeit Immigratioa
E>ocuments
False Statements to Obtain a Passport
False Statements in LPR Applicatko
Perjuiy
Theft firom U.S. Mail
Taking Kickbacks
Receiving Funds by False Statemeotss
Trafficking in Naixotics
Failing to Report Income
UnioQ OfBdal UnkwfiiUy Accepting a Loan
Kickbacks on Government Contracts
False Statements/Selective Service
Falsely Representing Social Security Number
False Statements/UoEmployment Benefits
205
35.
Part n. Adjudication
No. 3
FD-2S8 Checka
(A) Reduction in Wait-Time for FP-2S8 Checks.
Under exis tinj; pfqc<^urea;_dismaj)ffic« wait 60 jiays for the FBI to return fingaprint-
c heck (FD-258) re s ults. The FBI' s ourent proc«3ing time is in occcss of30 days. T he Serv ice is
currently working with the FBI to reduce the fingerprint check tum-arounid time to leas than 30 days
to enable fester processing of the N-400 applications by field ofiBces. In addition, we should all note
that that processing times begin after receipt of the FD-2S8s fixsm submitting ofiSces, ofScea should
makeevety effort to ensure these checks are timely initiated.
To reduce the average time required for background checks, it is esseotial that FD-2S8
submissions are properly prepared. To impnTve the qua lity and ime grity of the^ngaprints submitt^
by applicants for benefits, a designated fingerprinting service (DFS) ccrtificadon pro gim is beiiig
implCTiaiteSoi^lfiee nablin g regulation is approved by_OMB. Training ofService personnel was
completed last M and training of poTential DFSs is underway in LOS, MIA, NYC, SFR and CHL
Ehgict ofiS cea are encouraged to inform potential provid e rs of finggptingngservicgjo obtain the
necessary training as soon as possibl e. Upon p ublication of the DFS final r ule^ there wUl be a six-
month transition period to phase out the unauthorized fingerprinting services.~ At fiill implementatio n
of the DFS p rojg^^jhe Service will only accept fingerprints taken by authorized entitiu and
i ndividuals . " '
As^a quality control in^gjie, beginning May 1996, the Service will establish theN^raska
Service Cente r (NSC) as the coord inating centa; andcentral procwangfediityforall G^325A. and
fingerprint resp onse. HQBENJusarranggd jor theFBI to forward all such responses. Including
rejects, ill egible finger prims^jfl d "hits" d irectlyjoNSQ which will be responsible for receiving,
monitoring an d distnbu tin g all ir^form ation related to these checks. The FBI will be notified of this
procedural change. In addition, HQREC is assigning a responible collateral duty fingerprint
specialist at each adjudicating office to receive information and serve as liaison. In order to ensure
these procedures are e&ctive, we are incorporating a monitoring element into the Field Assessment
Program being established by Intenol Audit Internal Audit will provide us w ith the ability to monitor
and identify theoLuseo f late submissiona. and ensiife all FE>-2i)H c hedaare initiat^jmm^jgely
upon receipt of the N-400 ^
(B) Implementation Guidelines
1 . Agency check liaison duty
206
55:
As directed by HQREC, district ofiBces should designate a point of contact (POC) in each
field office to serve as the liaison between the NSC and the adjudicator responsible for an application
decision. The POC will recei ve instructions daily firom the NSC o f all agency "hits" and rejected
fonTis (eithef t-U-258 or (J-325A). For hits, the instructions will provide notification that the relSS
file will follow. For rejeaed forms, the instructions will notifyof the required hold and provide for
foll ow-up action . .Rejected and non-classifiable fingerprints wi ll no lon ger b e returned to the
a djudicating ofiSce for correction but instead will be handle d through the NSC.
Directors are advised that the POCs responsibilities w ill include handling classified
document s.
2. Designated fingerprint services.
Upon publication of INS No. 1666-94, Certification of Designated Fingerprinting Services,
all offices adjudicating applications for benefits which require submission of Form FD-2S8 will have
180 days in which to adjudicate applications for designation as "DFS". Critical to this ad^Idication
is ensuring applicants are provided the opportunity to gain required training.
Each office has a trained FD-258 trainer in place at this time. That person has been provided
with training materials and contact telephone munben at region and headquarters for additional
support and information. Regulations will specify that only INS or FBI trained_fii«firBrinten max_
prepare FD-258i An D^S or FBI trained fingaprinto' may train j)ther » at th e pFSjn.the procedure.
In order to reduce the effect"orUnr&ainii igjreguirenigtt during the implementttpn period, trained
fingerprmterTshould be actively communicating with potential DFS applicants and providing pre-
training^ It should be emphasized that the training is voluntary and provided on a voluntary basis.
Trained fingsprihters should" also inform pkitential DFS applicants that, while the training will meet
the requirement of the regulation if ptiblished, it does not imply eligibility or guarantee approval for
certification beyond the training requirement
207
ss.
Part n. Adjudication
No. 4
Reduction in Wait-Time for A-file Requeata
Under current procedures, an Adjudications OflScer waits for 6 months from the time the
applicant's A-file was requested tocondurt an interview without the applicant's file. This procedure,
however, unnecessarily delays the processing of naturalization applications and, for the majority of
applicants, the entire record is not necessary in order to review the events of the last five or three
years (residency requirement for naturalization). Many recent events or actions can be gleaned from
records checks and applications review.
As a result, this process is being changed to permit distrirt oflnces to wait only 30 days for a
requested file before proceeding with the interview and adjudicating the applicant's N-400 based on
a temporary file. On Febmary 21, 1996, the OflBce of Records sent a cable (HQRECIRPB 70144.2-
C) to all fidd oflBces outlining the procedures to be followed for requesting and transferring A-filea,
including procedures for files that cannot be requested through the Cemral Index System (CIS).
These new procedures speed up the A-file transfer process and ultimately, the amount of time it takes
to schedule an applicant for an interview.
Fffifrive with this memorandum, an office is allowed to create a T-file after the A-file request
has been pending for 30 days. Note, however, that there are a few exceptions to this policy. Fu^
a T-file should not be created or the case adjudicated without the file if the adjudicator has evidence
that the applicant fi'audulentiy obtained permanent resident status. Second, this process should not
be followed if; afler verifying in CIS, the A-file transfer subsystem code is "P", "D",''A'* or "F". In
this scenario, you should not complete processing of the case, unless it is dearly deniable without first
reviewing the A-file or after you have received verification fit)m the holding office that information
contained in the A-file does not make the applicant ineligible for naturalization. (Please see the
instructional wire referenced earlier for additional infoimatioa) Third, this policy should not be
followed if other circumstances exist, as determined by the District Director, which would necessitate
the review of the A-file prior to adjudication of the N-400. In most other situations, the interview
can be conducted and a decision reached on the application with only the T-file' in the possession of
the adjudicator. The A-file should be post-audited within 30 days.
Offices should not wait until the interview is scheduled before requesting the A-files. The
requests should be made at the time of receipt of the application either u part of the daily NACS FTR
(file transfer request) process or directly through CIS. Cases which have been filed at the Service
Centers through the Direct NM Program should have the NACS FTR or CIS FTR completed at the
time of data entry. All other ofifices which are not receiving the applications thrtiugh the DIRECT
MAIL program will need to initiate the A-file requests at their office
10
208
35.
Part EL Adjudication
No. 5
Testing Aoplicanta on Section 312 Requirement
Testing naturalization applicants on United States history and government and the English
language to fulfill the requirements of section 3 12 of the Act during the interview process is time-
consuming. Alternative testing procedures will help both adjudicators and applicants.
The Service plans to re-engineer and improve the policy and process of testing applicants by
implementing a three pronged action plaa This plan will provide field ofiSces with needed guidance
on establishing group testing of naturalization applicants. In addition, we will publish a proposed
rule that will effectively govern the testing organizations. We arc also considering fiuther regulatory
revisions that could expand the current number of testing organizations authorized to administer the
citizenship test Finally, we are investigating alternative methods for applicants to demonstrate the
requisite history and government requirements of section 312. ~
(A) Ahemative Method of Demonstrating Section 312 Knowledge .
The Service is currently investigating whether to accept academic completion records of
naturalization applicants who have attended school in the United States for at least two years and
who subsequently graduated firom United States high schools, colleges, or universities as a possible
means of satisfying the requirements of section 3 12. Almost all graduates of United States secondary
schools, colleges or universrties must fiilfiU various requirements for course work in American history,
government, and civics. Preliminary survey information compiled in 1994 indicated that almost all
applicants holding degrees fiom American schools or colleges had no difficulty demonstrating English
literacy or answering questions on histoiy and government The Service believes that applicants who
fall in this group could possibty be accepted as having satisfied the section 312 requirements without
compromising the intergiity of the naturalizatioa process. However, this is a major policy issue which
must be fully researched and addressed by the Service before a decision can be made.
(B) Group Testing.
The Service has learned from the non-government testing organizations that group testing.of
naturalization applicants in a group setting is an efficient, effective, and productive way for applicants
to fiilfill section 3 12 req uix aitenta. Group testing, using a standardized muhiple choice test comprised
of questions at various levels of difficulty, ensures that all applicants are trea t ed fiiiriy with regard to
the questions that are asked. In additioa, without lessening the integrity of the testing process, group
testing, when conducted as a pre-interview exercise, saves the govenimeot time by estab l i sh i ng an
applicant's knowledge of English and history prior to the scheduling of valuable interview time.
Policy guidelines highlighting the methods which have lead to the success of the group testing efibrts
currently used by the Citizenship USA sites as well as the Baltimore District Office are provided
below.
11
209
55.
While it has been the tradition of Service ofiBces to test applicants on questions of English
literacy and United States history and government during the naturalization interview, several offices
are now experimenting with the concept of group testing applicants prior to the start of the formal
interview. This method of group testing should bring about three positive results. First, applicants
will be put at ease in that they will not be asked history or government questions during the course
of their interview. Second, district adjudications officers (DAOs) will have more time to address
other issues needing clarification during the interview process. Third, it will increase our processing
capacity by shortening the avenge duration of a naturalization interview.
The Baltimore office has instituted a new policy of testing naturalization applicants at the time
they file the N-400. Applicants are given a ten question, multiple-choice test District Inspectors (on
detail) and DAOs rotate the responsibility of proctoring the actual multiple choice test, and ensure
that no applicant waits over five minutes to be given a test, even if that means the applicant is tested
individually. In addition, applicants who seem to have difficulty expressing themselves in English are
tested on their ability to speak English. All applicants are evaluated on their ability to spealTEnglish,
not simply those who demonstrate diflficulty during the N-400 pre-screening. All of these events
happen prior to the scheduling of an interview, thus saving the office valuable interview time.
The logistics of testing in larger offices are more challenging, but not impossible. The
Chicago district has instituted a group testing procedure both in the district office and at certain
community-based organizations, and Los Angeles is experimenting with alternative methods similar
to those used by many state motor vehicle drivers license bureaus.
R^ardless of whether an office is large or small, adopting the following two suggestions will
aid the group testing process. Fust, this testing concept should be discussed with the local AILA and
other attorney and community groups. Second, offices should seek the assistance of local voluntary
agencies in order to disseminate information on group testing to the immigrant community. (While
voluntary agencies should not be given the responsibility of proctoring Service 312 tests on behalf
of the Service, they may be of assistance in arranging testing space if testing occurs outside of the
district office)
Offices also should be advised that we are developing a standardized written and oral test for
use by all Service offices with applicants who have not used the services of private section 312 testing
organizations. We are working to contract out the actual test development, and hope to have new
procedures in place early in calendar year 1997. In addition, local offices needing updated lists of
history and government questions or sample tests should contact the HQ Benefits Division
Naturalization & Citizenship Services Branch at the telephone number listed below.
Offices seeking more information on group testing should contact Richard Caterisano. ADDE,
Baltimore on 410/962-21 18 or the Citizenship USA test sites of either Chicago or Los Angeles
(Aphrodite Loutas in Chicago on 3 12/886-7549 and Don Neufdd in Los Angeles on 213/894-6004).
Questions may also be directed to Peail Chang, Acting Chie^ Naturalization & Citizenship Services
12
210
I
3S.
Branch or Craig Ho\vie, Adjudications Ofi5c«r on 202/S 14-5014.
(C) Proposed Regulation for Outside Citizenship Testing Services.
The Service is also in the process of finalizing a proposed rule which will completely
restructure 8 CFR 312. This change of 8 CFR 3 12 constitutes a major policy decision on the part of
the Service. The current Notice of Program does not impose rules or guidelines on the non-
government testing organizations. In some instances, this has led to abuses by a few affiliated testing
organizations. In an effort to cure this situation, the revised 8 CFR 3 12 will impose exacting
performance, quality control, and revocation standards on these organizations. In addition, the
Service is considering expanding the accessability of outside testing eotities through the use of
additional testing centen. We antidpate publication of the proposed rule this spring, and
implementation of the final rule in the late fall, 1996.
13
211
ZS.
PartIL Adjudicatioa
No. 6
Alternative Eiamination Methods
Our current intoview scheduling pace needs to be recalibrated to take advantage of the time-
saving strategies outlined in this paper. To that end, the Service is proceeding with the introduction
of Alternative Examination Methods (A£M). The use of these methods is proposed to assist and
speed up the naturalization process for variotu groups of naturalization applicants, without
compromising the integrity of United States citizenship.
While the Service has traditionally used a generic, one-size fits all type of naturalization
interview, some ofiSces have experimented with their own creative methods to handle the ever-
increasing numbers of applications. These offices have enthusiastically reported that use'of these
alternatives has resulted in a more streamlined naturalization process. A combination of pre-screening
methods, group testing, primary and secondary interviewing, and off-site interviewing makes for a
more efficient interview process.
For example, the Chicago office pre-screens N-400 cases in conjunction with not-for-profit,
local community organizations. These organizations, in coordination with INS, provides off-site
areas on a weekly basb where residents can complete the N-400 packet. They ensure that the packets
are propcriy completed prior to filing the applications in bulk (approximately 300 each time) with
the Service. Problem cases are resolved prior to filing with the Service either by telephone or
referring the applicant to an attorney. Off-site interviews are scheduled and processed by the Service.
Such pre-screening and off-site interviewing allows for a much faster N-400 interview.
Another method that some offices have employed for more efficient interviewing is a primary-
secondary arrangement The primary-secondary arrangement allows offices to 'fiut-track* certain
applicants, such as those who have already satisfied the section 3 12 requirements through prior
testing by the Service (e.g.. legalization applicants) or an outside testing entity, or who are exempt
from the section 3 12 requirements based on age or disability. Routine interviews can'be handled by
less experienced officers, designated as primary interviewing officers. For cases which require an
L'v-depth Q&A or invoKe potential fiaud, the applicants can be referred to secondary for a traditional
interview with more experienced or Senior Adjudications officers.
The Los Angeles office is currently utilizing the primary-secondary anangement The N-400
applicants are tested for English and civics prior to the primary interview. Those applicants who pass
the English and civics exams are referred to a primary officer. Less experienced officen are
designated u primary officers and more experienced officers are designated u secondary officers.
The Los Angdes office has found that approximately 10% of their cases are referred frcm primary
to seoondaiy. The secondary officers also conduct primary interviews when they have no secondary
14
212
5S.
interviews. Los Angeles has found that the primary interviews are currently taking about 8 minutes
but may be shortened to around 5 minutes as the temporary employees who are serving as primary
ofiBcers gain experience.
The Form N-400 Supplement A (see attachment) has been developed to aid in the pre-
screening process. As mentioned previously in this memo, the Ofl 
