The Price of Freedom? At Ellis Island It Was Free
Topic: Your Money at Work, Citizenship and Immigration Services, The Forum, Yesterday's News?, Federal Agencies, Dept. of Homeland Security31. July 2007 |
Print This Post
|
Email This Post
|
It now costs $600 to become a U.S. citizen. The new fee is nearly double the old one, and fees have increased by nearly 100% for other common procedures such as petitioning for a relative to come to the United States, and by 300% for resident aliens (green card holders) to move to citizenship. How far can this fee-for-services model go when we are welcoming new citizens into our national community? The fee increases, as Rachel Dry reports in the Washington Post (see her article here), "are intended to reduce the typical waiting time and processing time by 20% and to update technology," which apparently means to buy new computers and hire more staff.
This higher-fee model has already been tried at the department known as U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, and was labeled a "Ponzi scheme" by one insider (see our note and a link to a Washington Post article here). Higher fees were supposed to accelerate processing, but in the end they only accelerated the fee increases. And as a result, according to the Post, 90% of the agency’s budget is being funded by fees.
A fee-based approach has its own logic. But it devalues the very idea of citizenship. By putting a price tag on citizenship (a relatively high one, for many immigrants) our government is sending the wrong signals to citizens new and old. Want a piece of America? Well, pay up and we’ll give you that piece — meaning, of course, that piece of paper you’ve been waiting for. Many immigrants will be glad to pay, some will be hard-pressed to pay, but everyone will find a way to pay. But should they? By accepting nearly $1000 from newly-minted citizens, we are moving one step further away from community, one step closer to putting a dollar value on everything that matters.
Our present citizenry and everyone — corporate citizens as well as I and my neighbors — should be willing to shoulder more of the financial burden to help legal immigrants get on their feet. Welcomed to our national community, they will return much more to our government and our society. The fees should be reduced, and this pay-to-join-the-USA approach should be revisited.
Ned Hodgman
understandinggov.org
$600 seems like a deal compared to the proposed $6000 fee for illegals. Then again, I’m sure the subject migrant workers and kitchen hands will have no trouble liquidating a portion of their ample investment portfolios to cover these practical fees. Clearly, common sense is alive and well when it comes to our immigration policies.
comment at 01. August 2007
I’d like to hear someone make the argument for these kinds of fees as opposed to a tax-based budgeting process. The idea of increasing fees makes it seem as though we are using a market-driven approach. “You want to be a citizen? OK, but it’s gonna cost you.” This could be extended to other aspects of citizenship…how about voting, for example? Citizenship and voting are pretty much intertwined. And then — why make only immigrants pay for citizenship? What about people born in this country? Why, they’re getting off scot-free! How about we grandfather this thing? That’s millions of new people paying a fee. Etc. etc. etc.
The whole idea of a tax-driven, budget-based government is that we as a society make choices about priorities. I think citizenship should not be a paying proposition for the government.
comment at 01. August 2007
That’s a logical and interesting observation, Mr. Hodgman. I was actually thinking that the natural extension of such policies would be to make citizenship readily transferable and assignable, which in reality means such rights would be promptly traded on ebay. That the franchise could be subject to such measures is sobering to say the least. Any objective Constitutional scholars out there to weigh in on the legality of this?
comment at 02. August 2007
Good question. Let me see if I can find someone who will do just that.
comment at 02. August 2007
Professor Ary Zolberg of the New School for Social Research sent on this comment to Understanding Government:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on what I think is a terrible policy. One of the most positive historical achievements of American society (almost, but not quite, making up for enduring racial discrimination) is the incorporation of people of varied ethnicities and religious backgrounds into the body of citizens. But gone are the legendary days when Jewish and Italian mamas could go to the local elementary school at night to prepare for the citizenship exam after feeding their families. Now, the anti-immigrant lobbies complain that newcomers don’t want to learn English, but there is much evidence that the demand for English-learning facilities exceeds the supply, even though they are now costly (see ads in the New York subway for commercial outfits.) Hiking the cost of naturalization is another step in the same counterproductive direction. For a constructive alternative, I refer readers to Irene Bloemraad’s “Becoming a Citizen” (University of California, 2006), an excellent study comparing the US and Canada.
comment at 14. August 2007
awesome article!! Interesting topic that really matters, especially to the people whom it concerns.
becoming a US citizen should be free imho, and I had no idea this was true. $600 is insane for becoming a citizen who will (99% chance i bet) will do something for the US worth way more than 600 $. i mean that theres no point in making a person pay $600 when he might invent a car worth like 50,000$ and amaze the country. someone out there is just doin “obdiralovka” on immigrants.
comment at 21. August 2007