Fear, Uncertainty, and Citizenship: Why Many Legal Immigrants Are Hesitant to Apply for U.S. Citizenship

May 21, 2026

Rising immigration enforcement, policy changes, and growing uncertainty are discouraging many lawful permanent residents from pursuing the protection and stability that U.S. citizenship is meant to provide.

In recent years, the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship has become an increasingly complex and emotional decision for many lawful permanent residents. Although naturalization represents the strongest form of legal protection and immigration stability, many immigrants are afraid to begin the process due to increased government scrutiny, immigration raids, administrative delays, and changes in immigration policies. Immigration organizations and legal advocates have warned that this climate of uncertainty is causing many individuals who are eligible for citizenship to avoid interacting with the immigration system altogether out of fear of making mistakes, facing additional investigations, or even exposing themselves to possible deportation proceedings.

An article published by MPR News explains how fear of deportation, bureaucratic delays, and stricter immigration policies are discouraging many legal immigrants in the United States from applying for U.S. citizenship.

The article focuses on the story of a Mexican immigrant who lived in the United States for more than 20 years as a lawful permanent resident. Although he had built a stable family and professional life, he never felt the need to become a U.S. citizen. However, the increase in ICE operations and the increasingly hostile political climate toward immigrants ultimately changed his perspective.

B, as he is identified in the article, describes living in a constant state of fear. He closed his used-car business after customers stopped coming, hid at work whenever there were rumors of immigration raids, and even carried a hidden GPS tracker in his shoes so his family could locate him if he were detained.

The article also highlights that immigration support organizations in Minnesota have experienced a significant decline in citizenship applications. The International Institute of Minnesota reported that the number of monthly applications they assist with dropped from 50–70 to only 20–25. Similarly, the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota reported a decrease from 108 naturalization cases to just 42 compared to the previous year.

In addition to fear, advocates point to several other barriers preventing immigrants from applying for citizenship, including:

longer processing times,
stricter reviews,
more difficult interviews,
changes to the citizenship exam,
and an increase in application denials.

Despite these challenges, attorneys and advocacy organizations continue to emphasize that citizenship remains the strongest legal protection against deportation.

At the same time, several other reliable sources have published information related to this growing reality. Reuters reported that legal aid organizations across the United States have observed that many lawful immigrants are avoiding any interaction with government agencies out of fear of additional investigations or possible deportation proceedings. Reuters also noted that stricter immigration enforcement policies have created what many describe as “a chilling effect” within immigrant communities.

NPR reported that millions of immigration applications remain backlogged within USCIS and immigration courts, increasing anxiety among immigrants who rely on temporary permits or legal renewals.

The American Immigration Council stated that stricter immigration policies have created a “deterrent effect” even for immigrants who clearly qualify for legal benefits such as citizenship. According to the organization, “Many people prefer not to file applications because they fear putting their status at risk or attracting the attention of authorities.”

The Migration Policy Institute explains that naturalization has historically been one of the most important sources of stability and security for permanent immigrants. The institute notes that naturalized citizens benefit from:

stronger legal protections,
full access to political rights,
and reduced vulnerability to changes in immigration policy.

Key Points to Highlight

1. Fear affects even legal immigrants

One of the article’s most important points is that fear is not limited to undocumented immigrants. Even lawful permanent residents feel vulnerable in today’s immigration climate.

2. Citizenship is now viewed as protection, not just a benefit

In the past, many permanent residents believed that living and working legally in the United States was enough. Today, citizenship is increasingly seen as a form of “legal survival.”

3. Bureaucratic delays increase anxiety

Longer processing times create uncertainty. Some cases now take more than nine months, reviews have become stricter, and applicants fear that even small mistakes could have serious consequences.

4. Financial barriers remain significant

The cost of the process (more than $700), English and civics requirements, and the need for legal assistance continue to represent major obstacles for working families.

5. Misinformation on social media worsens the problem

Attorneys warn that many immigrants receive inaccurate or misleading information online, which increases fear and discourages people from applying.

Immigration organizations warn that if this trend continues, the United States could experience a significant decline in the number of new citizens in the coming years, with long-term social, economic, and political consequences.

At the same time, legal experts agree that naturalization remains one of the most important tools for stability and protection, especially during periods of immigration uncertainty.

If you are a permanent resident and wish to apply for citizenship, you can contact Pikes Peak Immigration, and we will help you find the safest and most appropriate way to take this important step.

< Older Post

Fear, Uncertainty, and Citizenship: Why Many Legal Immigrants Are Hesitant to Apply for U.S. Citizenship

New federal rule leaves thousands of work-authorized immigrants without commercial driver’s licenses

By 7070266136 • May 11, 2026

Various recent media outlets confirm that a new rule by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), under the U.S. Department of Transportation, prevents immigrants with work authorization—including asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients—from obtaining or maintaining commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs), affecting hundreds of thousands of drivers. Reports from outlets such as The Washington Post, The Guardian, and CalMatters indicate that the measure is already causing the loss of licenses and jobs, as well as potential impacts on the supply chain. Meanwhile, labor and legal organizations have filed lawsuits, such as Rivera Lujan v. FMCSA , arguing that the rule is illegal, discriminatory, and severely harms the livelihoods of thousands of families. The administration implemented a rule that prevents asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients from obtaining or renewing CDLs. Lawsuits say it will “destroy livelihoods” A transportation-focused publication confirms the language used by plaintiffs: Attorneys stated that the rule “threatens to destroy the livelihoods” of thousands of drivers. It explains that asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients are excluded. Real impact: loss of licenses and jobs A recent CalMatters report shows that this is already happening: Thousands of immigrant truck drivers have already lost their licenses in California. Many have been left unemployed and in legal uncertainty. It is estimated that up to 61,000 could lose their licenses in that state alone. Economic and industry effects Driving schools report a sharp decline in student enrollment due to the new rules. Companies and analysts warn that the measure reduces the workforce and may increase costs. Implementation of the rule (key detail) Legal and regulatory sources confirm: The rule went into effect on March 16, 2026. It only allows CDLs for certain visa types (H-2A, H-2B, E-2). Other work-authorized statuses no longer qualify. Recently, The Guardian published an article analyzing the impact of this measure on driving schools. Start CDL, a driving school founded by immigrants Asyl Kushnir and Gene Moik, is facing possible closure due to a sharp decline in student enrollment following new restrictions implemented during the administration of Donald Trump. Enrollment dropped from nearly 100 students per month to just 25–30, seriously affecting revenue despite high demand for drivers. According to its owners, the changes have created confusion and reduced access for immigrants with work permits—such as asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients—who previously saw trucking as a stable job opportunity. This serves as a small example of the different angles from which this new policy must be analyzed. In summary ✔️ The rule exists and is already in effect ✔️ It directly affects immigrants with work authorization ✔️ There are active lawsuits (such as the one you mentioned) ✔️ Media reports confirm real losses of jobs and licenses

Case of Detained Nashville Journalist Raises Questions About ICE Enforcement

By 7070266136 • March 12, 2026

According to an article published by The Wall Street Journal, a Colombian journalist was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents under what appear to be several irregular circumstances. Colombian journalist Estefany Rodriguez Florez, 35, was detained by agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Nashville, Tennessee. Rodriguez works for the Spanish-language digital news outlet Nashville Noticias, which covers local news for the Hispanic community. According to court documents, Rodriguez was arrested while she was in a vehicle with her husband, a U.S. citizen. The vehicle displayed the logo of the news organization where she works. Following her arrest, her attorneys filed an emergency petition arguing that the detention was unlawful. They claim the arrest was retaliation for Rodriguez’s journalistic coverage critical of ICE operations and the immigration policies of the administration of Donald Trump. The case has now reached federal court, where U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson ordered the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to formally explain why the journalist was detained. The government must submit a written justification this week, and the judge may schedule a hearing to further examine the case. Meanwhile, Rodriguez has been transferred to a county jail in Alabama while her immigration proceedings continue. The Journalist’s Immigration Status Court filings indicate that: Rodriguez entered the United States on a tourist visa in March 2021. Before the visa expired, she applied for political asylum due to threats related to her journalistic work in Colombia. Her asylum application is still pending. She holds a valid work permit that expires in 2029. She recently married a U.S. citizen. She has also filed an application to adjust her status to lawful permanent resident, which remains pending. Generally, individuals with pending asylum applications are legally allowed to remain in the United States while their cases are being processed. Key Points of the Case 1. Allegations of retaliation against a journalist Rodriguez’s attorneys argue that the arrest occurred because she had been reporting on immigration enforcement operations and publishing stories critical of ICE activities in Tennessee. 2. Debate over the legality of the arrest The defense claims Rodriguez was detained without being presented with a valid administrative warrant at the time of her arrest, which could violate constitutional protections. 3. Possible constitutional violations Her lawyers argue that her Fourth Amendment rights may have been violated, as the amendment limits arrests without proper warrants or probable cause. 4. The government’s position DHS denies that Rodriguez was targeted because of her journalism and states that: She was present in the country without valid immigration status, Her arrest was part of a targeted immigration enforcement operation, She will receive due process in her immigration case. 5. Confusion regarding ICE appointments According to the defense, Rodriguez had been complying with ICE requirements and had scheduled check-in appointments. However, administrative confusion allegedly occurred after one appointment was canceled due to severe weather and later rescheduled. Important Legal Implications 1. Freedom of the press If a court determines that Rodriguez’s arrest was retaliation for her journalistic work, it could constitute a violation of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and press. Such a ruling could make the case highly significant for press freedom organizations. 2. Limits on ICE enforcement authority The case could help clarify the extent to which ICE can arrest individuals with ongoing immigration cases, particularly when they: have a pending asylum application hold a valid work permit are married to U.S. citizens 3. Arrests based on administrative warrants In immigration enforcement, ICE commonly uses administrative warrants rather than judicial warrants. Courts sometimes examine whether these warrants meet constitutional standards, especially when arrests occur outside detention facilities. 4. Adjustment of status through marriage Rodriguez’s recent marriage to a U.S. citizen and her pending application for permanent residency could complicate her detention, since that process can allow individuals to regularize their immigration status if eligibility requirements are met. If you have an immigration case for which you need advice, please do not hesitate to contact us at 719-602-4477. (We speak English and Spanish.)

Annual Asylum Fee in the United States: What It Is, How It Works, and Its Current Legal Status

By 7070266136 • January 22, 2026

Until 2025, there was no mandatory annual fee in the United States to keep an asylum case open. Filing an asylum application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or before an immigration judge within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) carried no cost for the applicant. This changed with the passage of the federal fiscal law known as H.R. 1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which for the first time introduced two fees for asylum applicants: An initial filing fee of $100. An annual fee of $100 for each year the case remains pending. How Does the Annual Fee Work? The so-called Annual Asylum Fee (AAF) requires every applicant with an open asylum case to pay $100 for each calendar year in which the application has not yet been decided. This charge applies regardless of the outcome of the case and cannot be waived or reduced. According to organizations closely monitoring the issue, the fee is assessed in two main contexts: Before USCIS: If the application has been pending for at least one year, USCIS must send a formal notice to the applicant with payment instructions. Within the immigration court system (EOIR): Cases that have been pending for more than one year also trigger the obligation to pay $100 per year, although for some time there was no clear mechanism to make this payment through EOIR’s platform. USCIS Enables Online Payment Amid Ongoing Confusion Beginning in October 2025, USCIS enabled an official online payment portal allowing asylum applicants to pay both the initial filing fee and the annual fee. This step was part of the broader implementation of the new fees established under H.R. 1. However, not all applicants have received clear notifications. According to reports, many asylum seekers are still waiting for information about when and how to pay the AAF, while some immigration judges have already begun requesting payment even when payment mechanisms were not yet available to everyone. Risks for Applicants Due to Lack of Clarity The rollout of the annual fee has been so confusing that at least one documented case shows an applicant being ordered deported for failing to pay the annual fee before any established method for payment existed. This situation was reported in a lawsuit filed by the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP). As a result, panic has spread among asylum seekers, along with a surge of phone calls and emails overwhelming immigration law firms and USCIS itself. To date, however, significant misinformation still persists. Temporary Suspension by Court Order Due to the lack of clear mechanisms and the contradictory guidance issued by federal agencies, a federal court in Maryland issued an order temporarily pausing the enforcement of the annual fee. This decision stems from the lawsuit ASAP v. USCIS, which argues that: The annual fee was applied retroactively without clear prior notice. There was no effective method to pay the fee before it was required. The agencies acted arbitrarily and inconsistently with one another. The ruling granted a temporary stay that prevents USCIS and EOIR from requiring payment while the legal dispute continues and prohibits penalizing cases for nonpayment during that period. Fee Adjustments for 2026 In addition to the ongoing litigation, USCIS announced that certain fees would be adjusted for inflation effective January 1, 2026. Under this adjustment, the annual fee for asylum applications would increase from $100 to $102, although collection of this fee remains suspended by court order. What Does All This Mean for Applicants? In summary: As of 2025, there is a $100 annual fee to keep an asylum case open, in addition to the initial filing fee. USCIS has enabled online payments and has been sending notices to affected applicants. There is widespread confusion and lack of clarity about how and when to pay, especially for cases in immigration court. A federal court has temporarily paused collection of the AAF while litigation is ongoing. Fees are set to be adjusted for inflation in 2026, although their enforcement depends on the outcome of the court case. The introduction of an annual fee for asylum applicants in the United States represents a profound shift in immigration policy, with potentially significant effects on those awaiting decisions in their cases. Although the fee exists in law and USCIS has begun implementing payment mechanisms, practical enforcement is currently on hold due to a court order intended to protect applicants from unfair consequences. The situation continues to evolve, and it is important to stay alert to new legal and administrative developments.