Beki Grinter

Archive for the ‘immigration’ Category

Immigration and Innovation

In immigration on October 3, 2011 at 11:07 am

Recently Stephen Fleming, a Georgia Tech vice president and executive director of Georgia Tech’s Enterprise Innovation Institute, told a U.S. Chamber of Commerce forum about the problems with the interaction between immigration and innovation. I thought these remarks were extremely on point, and so today I simply want to refer you to this post.

I know very well that it would have been impossible for me to start a small company, let alone innovate outside that structure. I needed both Lucent Technologies and Xerox’s immigration staff and their resources. I needed them for the entire 8 years it took me to get from being a student visa holder to being a Permanent Resident. I needed them to cover the tens of thousands of dollars of costs associated with the process. I needed them to know that it affected my ability to travel for work purposes.

Thank you Lucent and Xerox.






Immigration: Employment Controls in an Age of Giganomics

In immigration on October 1, 2011 at 10:11 am

A colleague of mine, Beth Mynatt, recently spoke at the World Economic Forum. She came back with many ideas, including introducing me to the idea of giganomics. Giganomics is economics for a time in employment when people are far more likely to have a series of “gigs” than become the “organization man”, someone who has a single job for life. The idea of giganomics caused me to reflect once again on the immigration system we have in the United States, and the one we might want.

Employment-based visas (I am deliberately excluding family-based and marriage-based here) are controlled. The purpose of the control is to ensure that the labor market remains favourable for citizens and permanent residents, while simultaneously creating advantages for the country by being able to capitalize on foreign talent. This seems very reasonable in the abstract.

Employment-based visas typically come with three forms of controls today: employer, time and caps. Most visas tie their holder to a particular corporation, exclusively. In the age of giganomics I wonder whether this is the most effective way to control a visa. For one thing, it puts large employers with their full-time immigration staff, their financial resources, etc… in far better positions than it does small to medium size corporations such as start ups.

My H1-B worked this way, and when I left Lucent and moved to Xerox, the six months I spent in the United Kingdom was waiting for my H1-B to be transferred from one organization to another. We can, and I certainly did, blame the INS for slow processing times. Perhaps we should also inspect this notion of employer controls. Are there some visas for whom being tied to an employer is not the advantage that we want to create in the American labor market? Who would those people be? Would the University play a role in identifying them?

The second set of controls involve periods of time. After this period of time is up, immigrants have either moved on to another visa or its time to leave. The H1-B is a good example, it is valid for a total of six years, but those six years are broken down by three years, two years, and then a final one year. I’m wondering whether this periodicity is helpful? It means that the default is that the INS process the same person three times in the course of six years.

It maybe the case that its considered desirable to keep a close eye on the employee or have the ability to say that their skills are no longer required (and deny the visa), but employers can do this too by simply terminating the employee thus rendering their visa invalid, at least for those visas that have some relationship between being employed and visa validity. What if the periodicity was one six year visa, or two three year visas. Consider the amount of time and money saved by the individual, the employer, and the Government.

Caps (i.e., number available in a particular year) do get discussed, there are caps on the H1-B visa. Are there two few or two many, the cap routinely changes in response to employer requests. This fluctuation and the dialog between corporate America and the Federal Government, is that a good model for implementing this control? I don’t know but I think it’s worth asking, and it is reflective of more of a conversation between constituents, unlike my own feeling of being in a system that really never thought to communicate with me.

Anyway, on the day when the caps for visas are reset, Oct 1, the start of the Federal Government’s fiscal year, I want to put another shout in for a conversation about immigration that doesn’t begin and end with policing illegals, but also includes a discussion about what we, the American people, actually want for our country, what we want in terms of a system that encourages the best of foreign talent while preserving advantage in the labor market for citizens, and how we might control it while also considering the costs to individuals, employers and the government for executing on those controls.

Foreign Students: The Choice to do a Ph.D. in the U.S. is More Than Making the Choice to do a Ph.D. in the U.S.

In academia, immigration on September 7, 2011 at 8:39 am

I’ve been co-teaching the Introduction to Graduate Studies class for a couple of weeks now. I am reminded of a  piece of advice I want to give to foreign students based on both my experiences as a foreign student in the United States and being an administrator for a Ph.D. program.

Foreign students arrive in the United States being very aware that they have chosen to complete their Ph.D. in the United States. But my experience is that there is less awareness that it is simultaneously two choices: the place of Ph.D. and the culture that creates that Ph.D. experience. What do I mean? I’ve never met a foreign student who did not understand that they chose to persue their studies in the United States because of the quality and calibre of the Ph.D. process offered. But, I have met many students who take some time or fail to grasp that they have simultaneously chosen to participate in a cultural experience that is shaped and dominated by American values.

This matters because the latter affects the ability to succeed in the former. An obvious example is conduct in the classroom. American students often address their Professors by their first name. Professors encourage it. Despite the differences in rank and status, the use of first names is considered appropriate. As is speaking up in class. No, I don’t mean being loud and talking over people, but students are expected to engage in discussion and ask questions.

It’s always dangerous to generalize about culture and values, but happens in the Ph.D. experience here must surely be tied to the value system that surrounds it: American academics and America itself. And I believe that there are some failure modes associated with not understanding the implications of coming to the U.S. to do a Ph.D. One challenge can be to not embrace the culture as it operates in the academic settings in which the student finds itself. Its hard to participate appropriately if does not engage the modes of participation. You may find it difficult, and that may be valuable to understand and reflect upon.

Another failure mode is to surround yourself with a culture that is more familiar. The most obvious example of this I can think of is that if you don’t practice speaking English as often as possible it diminishes the amount of practice you can get before having to present the results of research in English. The ability to write and speak English is essential for foreign students (and in that regard I was uniquely lucky being a native English speaker). But even with that huge advantage I spent time in graduate school learning how to write academic papers. I know other native English speakers who’ve gone through the same education. Our starting point was a huge advantage in this, for foreign students for whom English is not their first language, underestimating the amount of time that needs to be devoted to mastering the language and exposing yourself to every single opportunity to achieve that is vital.

And this is what I mean about the culture in which the Ph.D. experience occurs. It may not be “ideal” or even “right”, but it is present. Perhaps this doesn’t change how someone feels they can (or not) engage it, but at least I think seeing it as a cultural process that responds to certain values or not, provides a lens through which to understand success. And since many Ph.D. programs evaluate students on a yearly basis, it may also help to understand the outcomes of those processes too.

Shift in Composition of Immigrant Labor Force

In immigration on June 23, 2011 at 7:00 pm

I found this article very interesting, it reports a changing trend in the types of people emigrating to the United States. I am one of these new types of immigrant of course, and I know many others (many of whom are now, like me, choosing to become citizens). So, I was interested in this report because of its personal nature for me.

But I am also a University Professor, in a time when discussions about the future of the University are also on-going. And this report suggests that our college graduates are competing against these immigrants for jobs. At least that’s the side presented by this article. The other side is one that business frequently represents, particularly visible each time there is discussion about reducing the caps for H1-B visas is that they need qualified labor more than the U.S. currently produces. And in Computer Science there have been declining rates of enrollment (although perhaps that’s beginning to change). Seems like there are lots of factors that need some serious discussion if we are to get to the bottom of what is actually going on.

And I wish that the media (and many politicians) would spend more time reporting and discussing these factors rather than get the public wound up about illegal immigration. Not just because I think it’s frequently done in ways that are largely scare tactics rather than substantive discussion, but also now because I wonder whether we’re focused on the wrong “problem” as a result. Knowing more about these trends in immigration might be one part of rethinking the system so that it works for everyone, both those in it (timeliness, transparency, and fairness) and those affected by it.

But I expect we’ll continue to be motivated by the specter of an immigration problem that prevents us from finding out what’s really happening because that’s what our politicians can get themselves into the media talking about. And we are in an election season.

Newsflash: It takes Time and Money to be a Legal Immigrant

In immigration on June 1, 2011 at 12:41 pm

Georgia has approved a new immigration law. It gives the State increased powers to check people’s legal status. It also requires all employers to check the legal status of new employees. This includes the agricultural business who had sought an exemption from this requirement.

Shortly before the law goes into effect, the local news ran a piece about its affects on business, focusing mostly how it would lead to higher prices for food and even an inability to harvest this year’s crop. The local news stopped short of explaining why in their TV broadcast, but that didn’t stop some others suggesting that food prices will rise because not all agricultural businesses can bear the costs of legal immigration, and so they rely on illegal immigrants who make up a substantial number of farm workers (while others suggest that the new law is likely to and even beginning to scare away legal workers also).

Well, duh!

Of course doing things the right way is going to cost us more, and those costs will be borne by both the businesses and the migrants who have to petition and pay various processing fees and potentially hire staff to work immigration issues. Of course those will be passed on to us in the form of higher prices for goods. They haven’t even begun to address the question of time. I’ll bet that the seasonal worker program visa processing takes a substantial amount of time. I checked the Texas Service Center’s processing times (Texas handles applications for Georgia) for H2-A visa which seem to be the visas that legal temporary migrants hold, and they are processing applications dated Dec 2007. That means that if you filed your application in Dec 2007 they are just now processing it. (I admit this is actually worse than I imagined, I really hope there is some other way that temporary workers can come to the U.S. other than applying and waiting 3.5 years).

Governor Deal has said that he’s going to encourage more Americans to take up these jobs. I wish him good luck with that since this article suggests that we don’t actually want to do these kinds of jobs… He’s also said that he is looking into the concerns of the agricultural business. But even if he could make an exemption, given the part of the law about increased powers to stop and interrogate any foreigner, we’ll probably still have foreigners who feel unwelcome in Georgia.

If I am hopeful about anything it is that this law will continue to expose how expensive and time-consuming it is to be a legal immigrant. If we, the citizens of the U.S., learn more about the difficulties of doing the right thing, forced to pay attention with our wallets or shortages, I hope we’ll ask for something that’s better (cheaper and quicker).

H1-B Exile: In Which I Became a Visiting Scientist Luckily

In immigration on April 15, 2011 at 9:41 am

Generally, I tell people that I’ve been employed by three institutions since graduating. Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, and now Georgia Tech.

But there’s a fourth place I spent five months. Xerox EuroPARC in Cambridge, the United Kingdom. I describe it on my vita as a Visiting Researcher. I was a visting researcher, visiting England and EuroPARC because the INS was transfering my H1-B visa from one company to another. When I left Bell Labs, I wanted to start work at Xerox PARC, but the INS had other ideas about that. Specifically, the dual-intent H1-B visa is employer specific. So, in addition to the caps on the visa, the fact that it’s one of the few that’s dual-intent, it is also tied to a particular employer and a switch requires reprocessing.

Perhaps this made sense when employment was more traditionally for life, but that’s not the typical case today.

Unfortunately, the modern world is not the one that the INS promotes for its foreign workforce. There is no nimble or agile move, one that might be of benefit to the new employer (presumably since the candidate has been through a rigorous interview including demonstrating that they are more qualified for the job than any available American in order to qualify for the visa in the first place). Instead, it is time to enter a period of processing ambiguity.

For the future employee that is a period of unpaid exile (since the person can not be employed by the new employer). There is no grace period (well not one long enough) in which one can remain in the United States while the processing occurs. So, the lucky “customer” wins a trip home with no specified end-date.

And I was lucky, very lucky indeed.

I was lucky that there was a possibility for me to continue in my research career in a place where I was legally able to work, the United Kingdom. I was even luckier that there was a group of talented individuals whom I got to know through the course of this visit. I also got lucky that the UK was seeing very rapid adoption of SMS among teenagers and I was able to study this.

I was also lucky that I had a support system in the United States. I left the country, but I was still receiving a variety of mail. Since it was my intention to come back, I did not want to re-route all this paperwork to England. I needed an address where the material could go. I also was required by Bell Labs to perform a roll-over of some of my accrued retirement, one that was nearly impossible to do from outside the country (favourite advice “just call this 1-800 number”, only possible from inside the U.S.). I needed help to manage these matters while I was in exile..

Thank you to both my support systems. The one in the U.S. who held down the fort. And the one in the U.K. who developed my career in an exciting new direction. The opportunities and interactions I had in Cambridge have lasted far longer than the time I spent there. I was very lucky.

And so this is probably the last of these posts. I’ve called attention to what I think the problems are of our current immigration system for the people that it serves. In this post I also want to highlight the problems that the current immigration system poses for employers, the backbone of America’s economic vitality and continued success. This system has failed them as well as me.

Adventures in Intent: F1&H1-B

In immigration on March 15, 2011 at 9:42 pm

In 1991 I was offered a Fulbright Scholarship that would cover a portion of my Ph.D. It was an attractive offer. At the time I was choosing between two institutions, UC Irvine and a British University. I wanted to go to Irvine, but to do so I needed funding. The Fulbright was some of that funding, and I was very tempted. But ultimately, I declined it, (and before I received the scholarship that would let me attend UC Irvine).

Why decline the Fulbright?

Because it came with an Intent to Return clause (also have heard it described as the “go home clause” and more formally it’s known as the foreign or home residency requirement) on my visa. The Intent to Return is a condition that requires the visa holder to return to their country of origin and reside there for two years post completion of their studies before they may re-enter the United States. Not all visas come with this stipulation, but I was told that it was very common for people who received Fulbright scholarships to end up with this Intent to Return attached to their visa.

I didn’t like that idea. I wasn’t sure I knew what I wanted to do post-Ph.D., but I was pretty sure I didn’t want conditions attached to my decision. And I was incredibly lucky that I had choices. I could decline the Fulbright, because I had another option in the U.K. Ultimately I received a no stipulations fellowship from the U.K. that would allow me to go to Irvine and support me for most of the way through the program.

I can understand one rationale for the Go Home clause, it’s the idea that people can receive education in the U.S. and take the results of that and apply it back in their country of origin. At the same time I think there is a risk and a challenge in asking that. The risk is that if we discover really talented people while they are in the course of their program that we lose them. The challenge we ask of anyone who accepts these terms is that they know how their lives will be in 5-6 years. I know I couldn’t have made a good prediction about my life at the age of many people who enter the PhD program, in my early 20s.

Intent is an interesting term in the U.S. immigration system. Broadly there are two categories of intent. Intent to not stay (the Go Home clause is a very particular instance of this), but many visas mean that their holder is only here temporarily, and Intent to Stay (the Greencard is a good example of this).

Have you ever wondered why the H1-B is such an important visa? Why do so many immigrants want an H1-B visa ?Why is it so popular that the caps for these visas run out each year, long before the end of the year and all the people who need one have one? What creates the demand? The H1-B visa is one of the few visas that has “dual intent.” It’s a visa which you can apply for while on a student “intent to return” visa and one that while holding it you can apply for an “intent to stay” visa. You can’t apply for a greencard immediately after having a student visa if you are a worker, you have to apply for the H1-B visa, and you have to be on that visa before you can apply for the greencard.

Now what makes this particularly curious is that when you apply for the greencard as a worker, you go through a variety of work-related tests. You are tested to ensure that your job meets certain labor standards. You are assessed on your qualifications as to whether you, above all others, should hold it and for its relevance to the United States. So, if the greencard is an examination of work-related abilities, why can’t you when you finish school and start employment immediately transfer from one to the other? I’ve never understood the work that the H1-B is doing other than generating a lot of additional processing for the immigration authorities. I spent 6 years on an H1-B visa. I did not want to do so, but I had no choice, I had to apply post-PhD for the H1-B in order to be eligible to apply for the greencard.

In a series of posts I’ve had asking questions about the US immigration system, I ask two today. First, what risks do we incur when we ask people to “go home?” Second, what work is the H1-B doing if there are processes for a work-based greencard that test someones abilities (as well as their health, criminal record, etc…) that make delaying the vetting for permanent residence and the use of the H1-B desirable?

Secondary Inspection, Shredding and Help: A Greencard Story

In immigration on March 7, 2011 at 11:39 am

Secondary Inspection is the second round of immigration that is typically reserved for people who have immigration “issues” when they arrive in the United States. For example, the first time I went to secondary inspection I queued behind a lady from some part of the world where having a visa issued by the U.S. State Department was essential for travel into the United States. Unfortunately, she did not have said visa, so here she was in that part of the U.S. that is the secondary inspection area.

What, you ask, was I doing there? Well there’s a category of immigration that comes with automatic secondary inspection.

I submitted my Permanent Resident (a.k.a. greencard) materials shortly after transferring from Bell Labs to Xerox PARC. At the time I filed for the greencard, I had also filed for and been given the final extension possible on my H1-B (you can only hold an H1-B visa for a total of six years). I had two years to get the application for my Greencard approved. Surely it couldn’t take longer than that.

Two years later my H1-B ended and my greencard had not been processed. I entered a new phase of maintaining legal status in the country. Now I would, until my greencard was processed, apply, each year, for two documents.One to allow me to legally work in the U.S. and one that allowed me to travel in and out of the country for business. Each is a separate document, process and fee. It was during this period that I applied for the interim work authority, while my greencard application was in progress, but because the system could not process either application in tim, I also had to apply for an emergency interim work authority. Three filings, processes, and fees to maintain my legal status in the country.

It was the travel documents that triggered secondary inspection with each return into the U.S. I found the visible sending to Secondary Inspection, quite embarrassing, since you have to do it in front of all the other people in the immigration area. Hopefully you can imagine being sent to a backroom unlike most other people… I wondered whether they thought I was trying to somehow abuse or go around the system, I was actually trying to do everything to the letter of the law. Secondary inspection, for me, was like participating in Mastermind (made harder by having just gotten off a 8-10 hour flight). I was taken to a small interview room and asked a series of questions about my time in the United States. By this point I had well over a decade of experience. I was apologetic that I could not remember the first date I’d ever arrived in the United States, I explained that I was 7 and that I was a B-2 dependent visa holder and that Jimmy Carter was the serving President and that I’d entered the U.S. through JFK. I could remember the date and place of my second entry (Los Angeles, 19th Sept, 1991 about 9pm), but I had trouble remembering whether it was the 5th or 6th entry into the country that was my first entry through Chicago’s O’Hare. After about 15-20 minutes of this, I was allowed to enter the U.S. Each time I travelled in, I travelled on a document issued by the INS that they trusted so little that they wanted to check me out at this level of detail.

And so I continued to wait, until the shredding news story came to my attention. Apparently the California Service Center had discovered a new means of reducing backlogs by shredding applications. Of course, my application was pending at the California Service Center. So, a new question crossed my mind, had my materials been shredded (I only got the answer to this when I went for my naturalization interview, it took two officers to carry my materials into the interview room! My lawyer told me she’d never seen a file so thick, a rare moment of immigration pride for me).

I decided to call the INS help line. Three days later I’d not managed to get through. (I called recently regarding my naturalization process, and got through, so kudos to the USCIS for that!)

It was at this point that I decided I needed the help of my citizen husband. We wrote, three times each, to our local Representative, Nancy Pelosi, and to each of our Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. I learnt that each of them had at least one member of staff devoted exclusively to immigration matters. Additionally, members of Congress and their staff have a separate line to the INS, one where people answered! My in person visit with one of the staff members was particularly well timed since her office happened to be working on another British immigration case, apparently a member of a very high profile British rock band was having trouble getting the visa he needed to enter the United States for his upcoming tour. The staffer was happy to put in a call about both of our cases together.

Something magical happened shortly after I came to the attention of my members of Congress (it took three letters to each, hand delivered the second and third times), which was that my application got processed and approved. I wonder whether multiple offices had asked the INS about the same case, and maybe the agents decided that instead of putting it back into the pile of to process, they ought to process it.

My greencard was a 4 year wait, punctuated by yearly applications, multiple fingerprintings, and ultimately enough frustration to trigger engaging the U.S. political and representative system to see whether I could get help.

I offer this as another point of reflection on whether we could do and want something better.

Fortunately I Wasn’t Deported: A Citizenship Story

In immigration on March 3, 2011 at 9:06 am

Last week, I became an American citizen. I’ve been asked why, and it’s because I wanted a voice.

I also wanted to be done with immigration, a process that took me 19.5 years, and cost I would estimate well in excess of $20,000 (paid by me and the companies I worked for). It took one  F1 visa filing, four Employment Authorization filings, three Travel Authorization filings, a Petition to Adjust, an Outstanding Researcher Petition, three H1-B filings and three finger printings. My favourite though was my “we can’t process your application or your interim application in time, so you’ll have to do an emergency interim application” filing to maintain my legal status. One reason it has taken a long time is that I did this based on employment. I am not a daughter, wife, or a lottery winner, but a worker and student earning the right. (Follow this map, use worker…)

But the final delay belongs to the Georgia Driving License facility and the Motor Voter Act. Motor Voter was designed to get more people registered to vote by making registration possible when applying for a driving license. I went to the Georgia DL with my British passport and my permanent resident card. When asked if I wanted to register to vote I said no, because I know that I can not vote. I was registered despite showing this documentation and despite verbally saying no.

During the application for citizenship I learnt that registering to vote as a non-citizen was a crime carrying the sentence of deportation.

What had happened? During my application for a driving license, I never saw or signed a voter registration card. The only thing I signed was my electronic signature and that I was instructed to give because it was required for the license itself. It was then reused without my consent on my voter registration card. When I renewed my license, I was asked again if I wanted to register and I ticked no. Luckily I kept a copy of that form, lucky because my lawyer used that copy to make a case that when I am asked if I want to register to vote I say no.

Fortunately, the INS had issued a memo saying that now it was up to the interviewing officer to assess whether the person had sufficient “good moral character” despite being registered to vote, partially based (so I understand) on the mistakes that could occur via Motor Voter. So I hired a lawyer, another $3000, and had him make my case. Unfortunately, despite passing all the tests in the interview, the officer who interviewed me could not decide she needed her supervisor to make that call (this apparently is true in 95% of all these Motor Voter registration cases). And so I disappeared into a void that immigrants know too well, the one that consists of absolutely no transparency into the process and no knowledge of when or how it would end. I was left to wonder whether I would be considered good enough or taking a one way ticket out.

Months later (I’m lucky, some people wait over a year) I got my answer. They allowed me to become an American.

So, here is the voice that I said I wanted. I do not support illegal immigration, but I also do not support the current process of legal immigration in this country. It lacks transparency, particularly for it’s “customers.” It can be humiliating. I did not tell very many people I was applying for citizenship because of the embarrassment I felt over the potential threat of deportation. It’s stressful. For those months of waiting, I wondered what would happen to my life as I knew it. And I wish it was the first time the INS had put me in that situation. Being a legal immigrant costs a fortune. One I can pay. That emergency interim application because the two others couldn’t be processed, yes, that’s *three* applications for the same thing each of which cost me and my employer money.

We blame those who avoid the system (perhaps we ought to give equally vocal blame to those who hire them avoiding the same system), but I think we ought to take a good look at the system itself and ask whether we think its working. I shall be doing that with my American voice. I’ll be doing it, because this immigration system is doing it in my name, their policies and procedures are mine, done in my name and on my behalf.

Oath Ceremony

In immigration on February 26, 2011 at 10:13 am

Yesterday I became a U.S. Citizen, some of you have asked me about the ceremony. For those of you who don’t know, even after you pass the Interview (civics, reading and writing English) you are not yet a Citizen. You must attend an Oath Ceremony and be sworn in. I applied last August, 2010, I was fingerprinted in September, my interview was in December and yesterday, I was sworn in.

We, all 151 of us from 59 countries, were scheduled to arrive at 1pm for the ceremony. Many of us, well trained by the queues associated with immigration processing, were there at noon. The first approximately 1.5 hours was spent being processed (the ceremony was about 40 minutes itself). It happened in two phases. First the families were asked to leave the waiting area and wait elsewhere since the lobby area was now getting rather full. From 1-2pm we revisited questions that we’d had to address on the form. The Oath Ceremony form has a list of questions that you are required to answer for the time period since interview to the date of the ceremony. So, I was asked whether my marital status was the same, whether I’d been a prostitute or received any type of citation including ones for traffic.The purpose of this is to have one final round of judging my “good moral character.” Yes, that’s the phrase, and what it usually consists of is not getting into any trouble and if you do make it minor and pay up quickly. Also, pay everything else you owe on time, like taxes.

Perhaps more interestingly the officer who asked me these questions then asked me what my favorite football team was. He’d offered Liverpool so I knew he meant soccer and told him about Norwich City. He was excited that they had moved up a league and were doing well in the Championship cup. He congratulated me.

Ceremony check-in phase two occurred as we were led into the Oath room. Having confirmed my continued good moral character it was time for me to see my Naturalization certificate. I wouldn’t get to keep it but I did get to look it over. I handed in my Permanent Resident card. I’ve carried that card at all times since 2004 as legally required, so it felt strange to give it up. I was handed a small laminated plastic card with the number 69 on it, which would correspond to my seat and form the order in which I would eventually post-ceremony receive my certificate.

So after 19.5 years, my evidence of legal status for this was a laminated card.

The families of the inductees (is that the right word?) were let in. They sat behind us, and we all listened to a description of the emergency evacuation proceedings. There was a small piece of me that did wonder whether there would be some emergency and that I would end up leaving the building with nothing but the number 69 proving that I was a legal alien entitled to work and live in the country.

On my chair in the room was a small flag, the New Citizen’s Almanac, a copy of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and an envelope containing a Message from POTUS.

Fortunately, at this point the lights dimmed and a video started playing showing us scenes from around the country. Then we listened to the Star Spangled Banner. As an almost new American I was learning right away as the text to the words was being shown, every sentence that I had thought was a statement was actually a question. After the song, we did the country call. Each nation represented in the room was read out by the Ceremony official in alphabetical order and the people born there were invited to stand. The officiating officer asked us all to clap and cheer as people stood. It was impressive to hear how many countries were represented and to see the numbers that got up for each call.

Then we all took the Oath and became Americans. After that we listened to a message from Barack Obama and then the song Proud to be an American. This, I admit is my least favorite song about America, but in that room I was reminded that for some people this swearing in did represent a switch to the type of values that the song promotes. My journey felt different, and I would have prefered America the Beautiful since that always reminds me of the things I like most about America.

And then I turned in my laminated plastic number and received my Naturalization certificate and we left. Later on, K&I went out to celebrate and I still had my small flag in my bag, that led to some celebrations and a free beer for me. I can see I am going to like this country.