Before they leave office, Trump administration officials are determined to make their animosity towards immigrants known. Well, more known.

Last week, on Dec. 1, a mere 50 days before the presidential inauguration that will finally rid us of this tumor on American democracy, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) implemented a new, more complicated civics exam to further vet future citizens. It’s not enough that at the point of applying for citizenship, applicants have already been legal permanent residents for at least five years (many more in most cases) and that the process to become one has subjected them to thorough and invasive checks into their background that include their criminal and immigration histories, their finances, and any other detail that the powers that be at USCIS might consider revealing of their “moral character”. They then subject themselves to those checks all over again for the citizenship application process. But that’s not enough, no. To be worthy of calling themselves citizens of these great United States, they must also be able to correctly dissect pressing ideological questions such as why a Supreme Court justice is appointed for life (I mean, good question) or why the Electoral College is important (now they’re just trolling us).

The civics exam has been a part of the naturalization process since the 19th century, then administered by judges with little, if any, uniformity across jurisdictions. The test did not become an express requirement of the naturalization process, however, until the 1950s but even then, the degree to which an applicant was questioned on her civic knowledge was largely left to the discretion of the person examining her. This fact, in addition to the test’s purported purpose of measuring, not specific knowledge of random American history, but rather an applicant’s “attachment to the principles of the Constitution” means that in practice, it’s a tool that can very easily be used to exclude already vulnerable and marginalized populations. Given last week’s changes to the test and how it is administered, it’s difficult to see it as anything other than yet another poorly veiled hurdle to keep the undesirables out.

So what changed? Prior to Dec. 1, with a few exceptions, all applicants for naturalization were subject to a civics exam that consisted of 10 questions (from a pool of 100), of which they had to answer six correctly. Once the applicant correctly answered six questions, the exam ended because, well, what’s the point of going any further if he or she has already passed, right? Well, now the pool of questions has increased to 128, the number of questions administered has doubled to 20, and though the passing score remains 60 percent (or a total of 12 correct answers), the interviewing officer must ask, and the applicant must answer, all 20 questions. And here, readers, is where my Spidey sense starts going berserk.

It all boils down to this pesky little problem I have with how much of the decision as to whether someone becomes a citizen is left to the almost complete discretion of the USCIS officer conducting the interview and thus, the test. When one of the most important hurdles for an applicant to clear is proving “good moral character” and “good moral character” has no clear definition, discretion becomes a powerful and easily wielded weapon to deny a benefit the person is otherwise eligible for. Add this to the fact that many of the new questions are open-ended — meaning that they don’t have one clear answer but instead allow the applicant to respond in a number of different ways — and what we have is a recipe for injustice. Unprovable, intangible, unappealable injustice.

For example, when applicants have correctly answered the first 12 of the interviewer’s 20 questions, they’ve effectively passed the civics exam but the 13th question might then be something like, “Why is the electoral college important?” An informed person might arguably respond that it’s not and that in fact, it’s a racist, antiquated system that threatens the continued existence of our democracy. That’s not a wrong answer by any means, but it’s also not difficult to imagine how a USCIS official of the “America-can-do-no-wrong-we are-perfect-you-shut-up” variety might take offense and even deem that applicant to be un-American, in other words having very BAD moral character.

So, let’s go through some of these new questions and see how we (read I) would do:

Question 31: Who does a U.S. Senator represent? Did you read this, immediately feel super smart and think, as I did, “That one’s easy! It’s the people of their state, of course”? Well, silly rabbit, it’s actually not. Because according to USCIS, the correct answer is limited to the citizens of the aforementioned state. A Senator, it turns out, only represents those people who can potentially vote for her one day. Same for members of the House of Representatives (Question 32). News to me. We’re off to a good start.

Question 86: George Washington is famous for many things. Name one. Followed by the same question about Thomas Jefferson (87) and James Madison (88). Well, in certain circles all three of these men are known as racist, slave-owning, ex-presidents. How do you think that answer would fly at USCIS? I’m guessing not very well. And yet, it’s not untrue or incorrect.

Question 118: Name one example of American innovation. USCIS gives sample answers such as the light bulb, invented in 1879; skyscrapers, which first appeared in 1885; and, the moon landing, which happened once in 1969 and then never again. However, they leave out some of our more recent, equally important innovations like, for example, the subprime mortgage and its ensuing crisis; or, the War on Drugs, still going unsuccessfully strong since the 1980s. How many points will I score for bringing those up, do you think?  

My point is that the whole thing is a ridiculous endeavor designed not to inspire civic engagement or a sense of civic duty, but rather to exclude. We’re the club that (we think) everyone wants to get into and damned if we’re going to make it easy on people. I don’t know, I’ve been called an idealist many times (typically not as a compliment) but I grew up learning that my country is one big melting pot, made better by the blending of cultures and ideas. I drank of that Kool-Aid; I believed with my whole soul that that’s who we were. I may not be as naïve anymore but I will demand, until the day I die, that my country live up to the ideals that I was promised we stood for. That to me is the most American thing of all. Make a test that measures that.

Martha E. Menendez, Esq. is the Bernstein Senior Fellow at the UNLV Immigration Clinic.