PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 606.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 5, 2008
Strengthening American Citizenship Act of 2007 [sic] - Directs the Chief of the Office of Citizenship of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide grants (not to exceed $500) to assist legal U.S. residents who declare an intent to apply for citizenship in the United States to meet naturalization requirements.
Provides such grants to an accredited institution of higher education or other qualified educational institution for tuition, fees, books, and other educational resources required by the English language course in which the legal resident is enrolled.
Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to provide that a legal U.S. resident who demonstrates English fluency will satisfy the residency requirement upon the completion of four (currently, five years) years of continuous U.S. legal residency.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary of DHS to: (1) establish an American citizenship grant program for qualified entities to provide civics, history, and English classes to promote the patriotic integration of prospective citizens; and (2) implement a strategy to enhance public awareness of naturalization ceremonies.
Authorizes the Secretary to establish the United States Citizenship Foundation to support the functions of the Office of Citizenship.
Amends INA to set forth a new oath of allegiance. Directs the Secretary to: (1) incorporate a knowledge and understanding of the oath of allegiance into the history and government citizenship test; and (2) notify the embassy of the country of which a new citizen was a citizen or subject that such citizen has renounced allegiance to that foreign country and sworn allegiance to the United States.
Establishes a new citizens award program to recognize citizens who: (1) have made an outstanding contribution to the United States; and (2) were naturalized during the 10-year period ending on the date of such recognition.
People & committees
Sen. Alexander, Lamar [R-TN] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 606.
Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2721 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2721 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2721 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2721 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.