Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Financial burden and systemic dysfunction block immigrants' path to citizenship

People participate in a march in support of a pathway to citizenship for immigrants on July 23, 2021 in New York City.

People participate in a march in support of a pathway to citizenship for immigrants on July 23 in New York City.

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Perrins is a contributing writer.

Correction: A previous version of the story incorrectly stated how the Partolan family entered the country.

Raymond Partolan entered the United States on a visa with his family at just 15 months old. They settled in Macon, Ga., and worked to establish themselves in the community. But after almost a decade of putting down roots, the Partolans' life in America was nearly upended.

In 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service denied the family's application for green cards so they could live permanently in the country. The Partolans began a life of uncertainty as they struggled to regain a foothold in the United States. As Raymond called it, they had "a life in the shadows."


"My family spent thousands of dollars on immigration attorneys who promised us a pathway to legal status in this country," Raymond wrote in a blog post documenting his story. "All of our appeals were denied, and the future was bleak."

Although not yet a fully naturalized citizen, Raymond finally achieved lawful permanent resident status in November 2020 — 27 years after he arrived in the United States. Now, he works as national field director for APIAVote, an organization devoted to advancing the voting rights of Asian and Pacific Islander immigrants.

The Partolans' story is echoed among other immigrants. Restrictive and expensive naturalization protocols have prevented millions from becoming citizens who can fully participate in democracy.

Roughly 10 percent of the country's electorate is made up of immigrants — about 23 million voters, according to the Pew Research Center's estimates of Census Bureau data. But financial concerns and backlogs in the naturalization system mean that millions more immigrants are losing out on the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a new rule last summer that would have increased the fee for applicants by an average of 20 percent, starting in October 2020. It also would have eliminated many fee waivers for low-income immigrants.

While a federal court issued an injunction before the rule was implemented, it represents the growing cost of gaining the right to vote in the United States. For many immigrants, such a financial hill would be insurmountable.

If the rule had remained in effect, the application fee for a single person seeking naturalization would have jumped from $640 to $1,170, according to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. For a couple with two children under 18, the costs to achieve citizenship would total nearly $4,500.

To determine how severely financial burdens were hindering access to citizenship, researchers at Stanford University's Immigration Policy Lab developed a program called NaturalizeNY. From 2016 to 2018, the program offered immigrants vouchers to cover the application fee, via a lottery system.

The researchers' report found that offering vouchers increased naturalization applications by 41 percent, underscoring the financial barriers many immigrants face.

For Alison Kamhi, a supervising attorney for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, naturalization should be inclusive to anyone who's eligible.

"There are many deserving lawful permanent residents who've been in the country. This is their home. They've raised their family here. They've been hard working. We don't want them to be excluded just on a financial basis," Kamhi said.

The growing financial demands of becoming a citizen can block potential voters from fulfilling their rights from the beginning. But even those who overcome those barriers can face further difficulties.

In July, a federal judge ordered the Biden administration to immediately stop granting new applications for potential Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status. Since 2012, the policy has served as a lifeline for many people like Partolan. Under DACA, undocumented individuals could be granted a renewable period to be free from deportation and eligible for work permits.

In Partolan's case, DACA gave him a springboard from which he could launch a career.

"DACA really allowed me to come out of my shell with the protection that I now had. I was able to come out and speak more openly about being undocumented," Raymond said. "So it allowed me to really utilize my skillset to its fullest potential."

While the barriers to immigration on an individual level are large, systemic obstacles also exist.

A report released in June by Phyllis Coven, ombudsman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, revealed the agency is experiencing a record-high backlog of applications and petitions. The agency's struggles have persisted for years, but were exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Nearly 7 million immigration and citizenship applications were pending as of March 31, according to an April report from the USCIS. If those 7 million people had been processed and registered to vote before the 2020 election, the electorate would have grown by 4.4 percent.

Application fees are a major source of revenue for the USCIS, and that reliance makes its operations unpredictable, Coven wrote in the June report.

"Policy changes or pandemics, or both, can occur in any given fee cycle," Coven's report reads. "The backlogs that now exist at the agency are a direct result of, among other things, the lack of revenue sufficient to account for the actual costs."

An overhaul of the immigration system could help make sure that people moving to the country can have a say in their own governance. For Partolan, young immigrants are the key to ensuring that their communities are represented in the decision-making processes that affect their daily lives.

"Stay strong and stay true to yourself," Partolan advises young immigrants. "Your voice is powerful and important. Don't be afraid to use it."


Read More

a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less