One piece of big news in naturalization and citizenship this month is the final defeat of Lamar Smith's highly restrictive naturalization bill, H.R. 2837, the so-called "Citizenship Integrity and Backlog Reduction Act of 1998."

The bill passed in the House Immigration Subcommittee this past summer, but never made it through the Judiciary Committee. Smith reportedly tried to get the legislation inserted into the omnibus budget bill along with several other immigration provisions, but failed.

Smith's bill could have dramatically increased the processing times for naturalization cases. For example, a provision in the bill would require that during each naturalization interview, the examining officer verify

each of the nearly 60 questions on the application as well as any statement in any supporting document. The average interview time would be expanded considerably and fewer people could be interviewed each day.

The provision could even have been interpreted to mean that an INS officer would be required to independently verify everything on the application form, possibly meaning each case could take many hours to decide.

Another controversial provision in the bill would have made it possible for the INS to take away someone's citizenship instead of a court. There is a serious constitutional question on whether an administrative agency can take away someone's citizenship without due process. Also, the bill would expand the rule for what is a "material" misrepresentation that could lead to denaturalization. Current rules only allow denaturalization if the fact about which the misstatement was made would not actually affect one's eligibility for citizenship. The Smith Bill would make almost any misstatement enough to denaturalize.

The bill would also remove the exemption that people over 75 years of age have from getting fingerprinted. Currently, INS relies on fingerprinting done when a person became a permanent resident and on a name check run with INS. The exemption is in place because many elderly people are infirm with maladies such as severe arthritis and the fingerprint process is considered to be an unnecessary burden.

*Another extremely important piece of news this month is the fact that the INS received a big budget increase from Congress to reduce the backlog in naturalization cases. Over the summer, we reported that the INS had asked for $170 million in new funding to cut the massive backlog in cases. Congress has responded by including that funding in the massive end of session budget bill signed by the President on October 21st. We will report further on this when the INS releases details on how it plans to spend the money.

The INS recently conducted a study of 7,800 naturalization applications to find out rejection rates and the reasons for such rejections. The study made the following findings:

- 48% of applications are granted, 43% are continued due to lack of supporting documents and 8% are denied

- Of the 8% denied, 44% failed the English or Civics test, 25% had not met the residency requirements at the time of filing, 11% did not show up for the interview, 6% did not meet the good moral character requirement and 13% were denied for other reasons.

* At a recent meeting of the INS with Community Based Organizations (CBOs), representatives of the CBOs expressed concern that applicants could wait several years for their naturalization interview only to be denied for making an honest mistake and "jumping the gun" by applying perhaps only a few days too early. The CBOs asked the INS not to automatically require the applicants to reapply and instead take into account the long wait time faced by these applicants. INS officials agreed to entertain a proposal to not require a new application here.

* A Korean grocer in Pennsylvania has been granted citizenship by a rare special bill in Congress. The man was shot in a robbery in 1996 shortly before he was to take his oath of citizenship. The shooting left him unable to speak or raise his hand to take the oath of citizenship and the INS refused to naturalize him. The special bill eliminates the oath requirement in this case only.