Naturalization Reform and Civics Tests

Full Title:
America First Citizenship and Allegiance Act

Summary#

This bill would change how people become U.S. citizens by strengthening English and civics tests, adding required instruction on the oath of allegiance, and creating tougher rules and penalties for fraud or concealment in the naturalization process. The stated goal is to make naturalization a more rigorous demonstration of attachment to U.S. constitutional principles and allegiance. It also directs the Department of Homeland Security to produce new study materials and to report to Congress.

  • Raises the civics and English standards for naturalization tests (exam must be in English, 80% required to pass, and at least half the questions must focus on the Constitution, Declaration, Bill of Rights, or government structure).
  • Requires written, under‑penalty‑of‑perjury certification that the applicant received instruction on and understands the oath of allegiance before taking it.
  • Adds a detailed list of conduct that shows a lack of attachment to the Constitution (including terrorism, violent overthrow, acting for a foreign power, or material support for cartels/gangs).
  • Creates a new statutory section making fraud or concealment in naturalization a mandatory basis for denial, with a permanent bar for serious conduct and a 10‑year bar for other material fraud.
  • Increases criminal and civil penalties for naturalization and document fraud and requires referrals to law‑enforcement agencies when credible evidence of fraud exists.
  • Establishes an “America 250 Citizenship Initiative” to create updated study and oath materials and requires annual reports to Congress.

What it means for you#

  • Applicants for naturalization: The civics test will be tougher and given in English. You must score at least 80% and answer many questions about the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the oath. You will get instruction on the oath and must sign a written certification that you understand it. If you knowingly lie, conceal facts, use fraudulent documents, or obstruct checks, your application must be denied and you may face long bars to citizenship or criminal charges.
  • People who committed serious crimes or acted for foreign powers: The bill lists specific conduct (terrorism, espionage, material support for transnational criminal organizations, serious violent crimes, etc.) that can lead to a permanent bar to naturalization if tied to fraud or concealment.
  • Applicants with disabilities or special cases: The bill says reasonable accommodations must be provided and does not change existing statutory waivers or exceptions, but it tightens core exam and oath requirements generally.
  • U.S. government agencies: DHS (including USCIS) must revise study materials, run the oath instruction program, keep records, and make fraud referrals to agencies like ICE, FBI, and DOJ. The Secretary must issue regulations within 180 days and provide annual reports to Congress.
  • Courts and prosecutors: The bill raises criminal penalties for naturalization fraud and related false‑statement offenses. It also preserves existing denaturalization authorities and signals more referrals and prosecutions of alleged fraud.
  • Anyone already a U.S. citizen: The bill explicitly says it does not change the citizenship status of current citizens and does not create new entitlements to citizenship.

Expenses#

No direct public cost estimate is identified in the bill text or accompanying material provided.

  • No fiscal note or budget estimate is included in the material supplied.
  • The bill would likely require DHS to revise materials, run instruction programs, keep new records, and perform more investigations and referrals. This could mean increased administrative costs for USCIS, and likely increased investigative and prosecutorial costs for DOJ, FBI, and other agencies.
  • Increasing criminal penalties and enforcement could lead to more prosecutions, court cases, and potential incarceration costs, but the bill text does not provide numbers or estimates.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to restore naturalization as a serious civic commitment and to ensure new citizens understand and accept the Constitution and the oath of allegiance.
  • It seeks to tighten English and civics standards so applicants have “substantial knowledge” of U.S. constitutional principles and the duties of citizenship.
  • The legislation aims to deter and block people who support terrorism, violent overthrow, foreign powers, or transnational criminal organizations from becoming citizens.
  • It is designed to deter fraud and make it easier to deny naturalization based on clear findings of false statements, concealment, or use of fraudulent documents.
  • The America 250 initiative is intended to provide consistent study materials and public information about citizenship and the oath.

Opponents' View (possible concerns grounded in the bill text)#

  • One concern is that higher passing thresholds (80%) and the requirement that the exam be in English could make naturalization harder for some lawful applicants, even those who would otherwise qualify under current rules.
  • The bill gives broad lists of disqualifying conduct (for example acts “materially inconsistent with allegiance”), but it relies on regulations and agency determinations for application. It is unclear from the text how those discretionary judgments will be made in specific cases.
  • The statute requires denial when the Secretary determines an applicant “knowingly” engaged in fraud or concealment. The bill does not specify the exact legal standard or evidentiary procedures for some of these administrative fraud findings beyond existing law, which may raise questions about due process or review in practice.
  • Expanding mandatory referrals to law enforcement and increasing criminal penalties could lead to more prosecutions and removals. This could increase enforcement costs and court workloads, but the bill does not detail resources or implementation plans.
  • While the bill says it does not permit denial based solely on protected speech, religion, nationality, or lawful contacts with foreign governments, applicants could still face heightened scrutiny for certain associations. How that scrutiny will be balanced against protected activities depends on the forthcoming regulations and enforcement practice, which the bill does not fully describe.