individual citizens. When we run mass naturalization programs without adequate resources, the integrity of the process is quickly compromised. When we run mass naturalization for those who come from a contiguous country with a historical political grievance, the failure to give the process integrity can take on broader long-term dimensions, which I hope to address a bit later.

But in this country today, we have adopted Sheldon Wolin's “thin theory of consent", where, as Richard Sinopoli says in a recent book, "the centralization of political power in the administrative state of the 20th century and great concentrations of economic power have contributed to the delegitimization of democratic man and the replacement of the very notion of citizen by that much studied specimen, the American voter." "A State that needs only formal legitimation," says Wolin, "reduces citizenship to such a negligible consideration that all the burning issues of political theory, participation, equality, civic virtue and justice, no longer seem to matter."

We could not agree more. This country has essentially established a thin intellectual gruel on which our citizenship conception is based, inherited mostly from the framers and the Founding Fathers and political philosophers that they inherited. Citizenship in this country does need to involve more in the way of active community management and participation so that citizens feel that their citizenship means something and distinguishes them from non-citi

zens.

Although scholars and academics debate the meaning of citizenship at length, for us at FAIR, the matter is straightforward. The Nation is basically made up of land, which includes airspace resources, natural endowments, the people, in quotes, the people, and institutions. The people in a republican democracy support the institutions. As Churchill said, "We shape our buildings, and afterwards, our buildings shape us." Political institutions reflect the civic character and virtue of the citizens that comprise them.

Virtues that we think should be promoted in the citizenship process and generally, discipline and the self-study and personal improvement it implies; honesty, fair dealing, including good moral character. Burke said private honor is the foundation of public trust. We should remind ourselves of that as we work hard to try to separate private honor and the public trust.

General love of country; a duty to inquire, including a duty and an educational ability to inquire into the political and social history of the country. Burke also noted that those who will not look back at their ancestors will never look forward to their posterity.

A drive to succeed, which implies a drive to acquire the common language and pursue excellence, however defined; a commitment to understand and support our republican form of government and a commitment to participate in it and vote in it; a shared sense of future and shared sacrifice. My biological ancestors, great grandparents, came from Russia, but my political ancestors are Washington, Hamilton, Lincoln. A willingness to recognize and support the Constitution and national boundaries, and a commitment to preserve the land and its resources.

My testimony goes into some discussion about this idea of a universal nation, this world versus Jihad concept that the United

States is becoming, our international/transnational culture, and then I go on to make some specific recommendations about not using private contractors.

We also believe that the naturalization process should be a twostep process. The potential citizen should set up a declaration of intent to naturalize within a rigorous educational process put on by government-sponsored programs to inculcate the values and virtues I just mentioned. This would be essentially an 8-year process with 3 years after the declaration of intent to naturalize.

User fees should cover the actual cost of the naturalization. We support a public service requirement for potential new citizens. We recommend at least 100 hours and trust Congress to craft the general parameters of what that would be.

References should be required for naturalization applicants and there should be no exemption from the English language requirement. As Ron Dworkin has observed, the right to claim membership in a liberal political community "should presuppose the capacity to make one's political preferences known." As their burden is the same, the requirements for demonstrating their ability to meet that burden should be the same. Citizenship should not be a reward for endurance but a recognition for fitness to join the political body politic.

But all these other factors pale in comparison to the main issue. Fifty years from now, we will look back and see the decision of the Mexican government to allow dual nationality as one of the most historic events of this century, I believe.

When you are talking about limited dual nationalities arising as a result of small numbers of immigrants coming from countries halfway across the globe, these factors maybe do not represent a threat to the security of the country, but as Americans watch new citizens taking the oath of office, the oath says, "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince," and on and on.

Now, unless those words have no meaning, unless this is a fraud, unless we can have it both ways, one foot in, one foot out, rights and privileges in both countries, then we should not ask citizens to take the oath of allegiance if, in fact, they are not declaring exclusive allegiance to this country.

Now, the difficulties are somewhat obvious when we consider the situation of native-born citizen, but for immigrants, it should not be that difficult. We recommend that there be a 30-day period after the taking of the oath of allegiance during which time the new citizen will have demonstrated amply that he or she will have taken whatever steps are required to relinquish their nationality in their original country or else the new U.S. citizenship is automatically rescinded.

When you have millions of people from a contiguous foreign country which has a prior ancestral land claim, a historic political grievance, a belief that the United States has occupied Mexico, that the Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo really does not exist, you are not dealing with the immigrant contract with America, which is that I come from a home country 20,000 miles away, never to see it again, to join the American experiment, to become a citizen and pursue the American dream. It becomes, in a sense, a process, as

we hear frequently from Mexican officials, of reoccupying what was theirs anyway, although Spain held it longer than anyone.

The truth is, over time, if you have dual nationals from the United States and Mexico with U.S. citizens in Mexico participating in Mexican elections and Mexican citizens participating in U.S. elections, in time, the border becomes meaningless and you, in a sense the previous panel has said there was no empirical evidence. Well, one has to merely read Will Durant's "Lessons of History" to understand what is happening here. This is not immigration. This is recolonization, and binationality or dual citizenship in that context is a troublesome thing. If, at some point down the line, Mexico were to decide to try to run its writ across parts of the Southern United States, which side of the conflict would these dual nationals fall on?

I know it sounds a little alarmist to raise the issue now, but recognize that we are now naturalizing millions and millions of people potentially in this situation, and so that we will be eviscerating those distinctions down the line in what I believe will be a longterm and profound historic mistake.

I also address in my testimony the fact that invidious distinctions or punitive distinctions between citizens and non-citizens are not appropriate. Someone who comes here and, as a result of hardships which could not have been foreseen, certainly should be accommodated. Nevertheless, making distinctions in welfare benefits, in various entitlements and other privileges of citizenship are rightfully reserved for citizens and we believe that Congress acted appropriately and should continue to act appropriately to restore the viability of the idea that citizenship matters, that State resources can be reserved for citizens, that it is healthy, it is right, that Proposition 187 turned out to be the biggest naturalization program spur that we have seen in the last 50 years.

Three years ago, we heard complaints that not enough people were naturalizing in the New York Times and suddenly everybody wants to become a citizen. The incentives have to be built into the process and the distinctions between citizen and non-citizen are important.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will welcome your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Stein follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN STEIN

When any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely * * * they were not at once admitted to citizenship[.] The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people. -Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part I of Second Part, Q. 105, Art. 3.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). My name is Dan Stein and I am the executive director of FAIR. FAIR is a national nonprofit, public interest organization working to end illegal immigration and to adjust immigration to conform it to today's national need.

My testimony today is about making naturalization a more meaningful process. To do so, I suggest we follow the lead of Congress itself, which has just passed a law that began as the Immigration in the National Interest Act. While opinions on the final form this law has taken vary, I must applaud the concept at its heart, the concept that immigration should in fact be fashioned with reference to the needs of

the American people and the national interest. Had our country not lost sight of this central precept, further dramatic immigration reforms might not be necessary today. Most of the problems of immigration stem from forgetting that immigration should be beneficial not simply for the immigrant, but for our society as well. To be a success, the relationship between the immigrant and our society must be mutually beneficial.

We are concerned that recent mismanagement of the naturalization process has cut corners and has degraded the standards for citizenship. However, the diminution of the value of citizenship is not confined to, nor did it begin with, the naturalization process. America's awareness of the responsibilities of any citizen, nativeborn or naturalized, to his country have faded. Nowadays, everything is viewed in terms of individual rights, and what our country can do for us has eclipsed what we can do for our country. We have adopted Sheldon Wolin's "thin theory of consent" where, as Richard Sinopoli states in The Foundations of American Citizenship, "the centralization of political power in the administrative state of the twentieth century and great concentrations of economic power have contributed to the 'delegitimization of democratic man' and the replacement of the very notion of citizen by that much studied specimen, the American voter. 'A state that needs only formal legitimation,' [says Wolin], reduces ‘the citizen to such a negligible consideration that all the burning issues of political theory-participation, equality, civic virtue and justice—no longer seem to matter."" (Oxford University Press, 1992.)

Although scholars and academics debate the meaning of citizenship at length, for us the matter is fairly straightforward: A nation is made up of land (including airspace, resources and natural endowments), "the people," and institutions. "The people" in a republican democracy support the institutions or as Churchill said, "we shape our buildings, and afterwards, our buildings shape us." Political institutions reflect the civic character and virtues of the citizens that comprise them. The virtues we have favored historically are both individual and social:

• Discipline, and the self-study and personal improvement it implies;

⚫ honesty and fair dealing, including good moral character;

• a general love of country;

• a duty to inquire including a duty and educational ability to inquire into the political and social history of the nation;

• a drive to succeed, which implies a drive to acquire the common language and pursue excellence, however defined;

• a commitment to understand and support our republican form of government, and a commitment to participate and vote in it;

• a sense of shared future and shared sacrifice;

• a willingness to recognize and support the Constitution and the nation's boundaries;

• a commitment to preserve the land and its resources.

Naturalization procedures and preparations should emphasize these positive virtues through study and social service. Is there a national consensus on this? Truthfully, there is no longer any real agreement about what this country is: Is it an idea? Are we a "universal nation" transcending the land boundaries and the nationbased culture? Some believe that. We at FAIR doubt it. For the immigrant, there are even greater burdens. They come from the need to "catch up," if you will. She/ he has not lived a life in the United states, and therefore enters the stream of civil discourse later and without a shared part of the collective national memory. Naturalization practices should take this into account, and work to help ensure the new naturalized citizenry understands and is exposed to the social, political and cultural events of the past twenty years. Today's naturalization exam obviously reflects an effort to simplify and accelerate the process of mass naturalization. It does not reflect any real effort to inculcate more than a tiny component of this overarching scheme. It goes well beyond the scope of this testimony to consider all the changes that would be needed to revive these broader precepts. But at a minimum, those eligible for Permanent Resident status need to be better educated, and placed under far greater scrutiny prior to admission than is now the case.

Before reviewing our recommendations, I point out that my remarks presuppose an Executive Branch of the government that is committed to enforcing both the spirit and letter of the law. Recent scandals involving INS and its contractors suggest that now there is more emphasis on expediency-even at the expense of legality or integrity-than in ensuring a process that serves the broad public interest. Most recent immigrants, it seems, are spurred to naturalize by the prospect of bringing more relatives or maintaining access to various public benefits programs.

In this climate, it is understandable what has happened to naturalization. Instead of being the means by which America assures that its adopted citizens understand the burdens of citizenship—and demonstrate their readiness to assume them—it is

treated as the means by which aliens can more quickly petition for the admission of relatives abroad.

Immigration and Naturalization Service is the name. Just as immigration should be in the national-community's interest, so too should naturalization. The question then is not simply what is fair to the immigrant, but rather what is beneficial for our country. With that in mind, we recommend the following changes in the naturalization process.

All private contracting of the naturalization process should stop. The recent difficulties of the Citizenship USA program are evidence of the risk of making citizenship a business. This dangerous experiment has failed, and badly. Do not be deceived: the answer does not lie in tightening the controls over private contractors, establishing oversight committees to monitor them, or even detailed regulation about what procedures they must follow. All private contracting of the naturalization process should cease. The use of private contractors necessarily sets up a reward system whose sole interest lies in qualifying as many people as quickly as possible. This emphasis on the quantity of applicants handled inevitably damages the quality of the process. Clearly, the responsibility for naturalization lies with the state and must be carried out by the state. The state cannot appropriately farm out its responsibility for naturalization-an act of supreme national importance—any more than it can contract out the duties of this legislative body.

Naturalization should be a two-step process, beginning with a declaration of intent to naturalize. A lawful permanent resident alien should be eligible, after five years in that status, to declare his intent to naturalize. That declaration should be followed by a three-year period in which the applicant has the opportunity to fulfill all the requirements for citizenship and the government has the opportunity to do a thorough check for criminal background or other disqualifying features. Regardless of when the requirements are met, the applicant could not be naturalized until the end of the three-year period. This built-in schedule will remove any temptation to stint the process by rushing it along or by omitting some part entirely (as has happened in the Citizenship USA program with fingerprint checks).

The naturalization user fee should not be subsidized; it should reflect the actual cost of the service of naturalization. In its April 1994 report on INS user fees (GAO/ GDD-94–101), the General Accounting Office pointed out that the naturalization user fee covers less than half of the pro-rated cost of the naturalization process. Of all INS user fees, the naturalization fee is the one most discounted from the actual taxpayer cost of the service provided. The GAO estimated the cost of the process at approximately $200 per person. Surely anyone prepared to assume the burden of citizenship can, over a period of eight years, meet this burden as well.

The naturalization process should include a public service requirement. The process of becoming a citizen should help prepare immigrants to bear the burden of citizenship. While not all citizens can do public service, it is important to communicate to applicants that citizenship is about contributing to society, not just to oneself. Many high schools require community service of their students to qualify for graduation; the seriousness of inculcating the demands of citizenship properly exercised suggests that this is an appropriate requirement as well. We would suggest a requirement of at least 100 hours, and trust that Congress and the INS could craft appropriate general criteria for what would constitute public service. Over the threeyear period between declaration of intent and final naturalization, there would be plenty of opportunity to complete the community service requirement.

References should be required for naturalization applicants. Just as immigrants must have sponsors for their admission and every job in the United states requires references as a precautionary measure and as a means to verify the character of the applicant, so too this standard and obvious method should be part of the naturalization process. Naturalization would require affidavits from three U.S. citizens of good character (as defined by the naturalization law already), testifying to the good character of the applicant and his desirability as a new citizen. No appropriate naturalization applicant should have difficulty finding such references after five to eight years as a contributing member of our society. During the three-year declaration period, the INS would have ample opportunity to confirm the references, who might then later play a supporting role in the naturalization ceremony.

There should be no exemptions from naturalization requirements, including the language requirement. In the past, there were no such exemptions. At present, the English language requirements are waived or modified under certain circumstances, such as age of the applicant or the length of his stay in the United States. But in our society, the eldest are as responsible for the civic well-being as the rest of us. As Ronald Dworkin has observed, a right to claim membership in a liberal political community "should presuppose a capacity to make one's political preferences known." (Sinopoli at 170.) As their burden is the same, the requirements for dem