When “Neutral” Rules Become Racist: How In-Person Verification Targets Naturalized Citizens

By Isaac Rush

Universities claim in-person citizenship verification is just a procedural update, meant to prevent fraud. That may be the stated reason, but the reality is far uglier. Naturalized citizens and students born abroad are being singled out, burdened, and treated as if their legitimacy is in question. This isn’t just inconvenient, it is targeted discrimination, plain and simple.

The system is designed to catch “irregularities,” yet the very definition of irregular disproportionately applies to people with foreign-born documentation, accents in their names, or non-English naming conventions. Legal name changes, delayed Social Security numbers, or foreign birth certificates, fully legitimate facts, become triggers for suspicion. The rules claim neutrality, but the outcome is racialized and biased.

Universities enforce this with a blunt instrument. Staff, terrified of federal audits, demand in-person verification for anyone who appears “different on paper.” Naturalized citizens are forced to travel, take time off, and repeatedly prove something they already legally earned: U.S. citizenship. Meanwhile, students with standard documentation glide through the system with zero scrutiny. That is targeting, and it is not subtle.

Labeling this as anything other than discrimination is disingenuous. The policy functions like structural racism: it doesn’t say “we distrust you because of your origin,” yet it imposes burdens almost exclusively on those who were born elsewhere. Legal status, compliance, and bureaucracy have become excuses for singling out a population for suspicion and inconvenience.

The effect is clear. Naturalized citizens are treated as provisional members of society, required to justify themselves repeatedly while others are trusted by default. The policy may be “legal,” but it is ethically indefensible. It is targeted. It is biased. And calling it what it is, racism in procedural form, is not only fair, it is necessary. Until this system stops disproportionately burdening lawful citizens based on where they were born, higher education will continue to perpetuate inequality under the guise of fraud prevention.

The system is designed to catch “irregularities,” yet the very definition of irregular disproportionately applies to people with foreign-born documentation, accents in their names, or non-English naming conventions. Legal name changes, delayed Social Security numbers, or foreign birth certificates, fully legitimate facts, become triggers for suspicion. The rules claim neutrality, but the outcome is racialized and biased.

Universities enforce this with a blunt instrument. Staff, terrified of federal audits, demand in-person verification for anyone who appears “different on paper.” Naturalized citizens are forced to travel, take time off, and repeatedly prove something they already legally earned: U.S. citizenship. Meanwhile, students with standard documentation glide through the system with zero scrutiny. That is targeting, and it is not subtle.

Labeling this as anything other than discrimination is disingenuous. The policy functions like structural racism: it doesn’t say “we distrust you because of your origin,” yet it imposes burdens almost exclusively on those who were born elsewhere. Legal status, compliance, and bureaucracy have become excuses for singling out a population for suspicion and inconvenience.

The effect is clear. Naturalized citizens are treated as provisional members of society, required to justify themselves repeatedly while others are trusted by default. The policy may be “legal,” but it is ethically indefensible. It is targeted. It is biased. And calling it what it is, racism in procedural form, is not only fair, it is necessary. Until this system stops disproportionately burdening lawful citizens based on where they were born, higher education will continue to perpetuate inequality under the guise of fraud prevention.