The Grievance Audit holds the modern federal record up against the twenty-seven grievances of the Declaration of Independence. Quote the grievance, quote what the Founders built, lay out today’s record with citations. Terms per Black’s Law Dictionary. Reporting on documents, not legal advice. On this subject especially, the audit takes no position on what immigration policy should be — only on the mechanical echo of the grievance’s words.
The grievance
“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither…” — Declaration of Independence, para. 10 (1776)
Read it twice, because it surprises people. In 1776 the complaint was that the Crown kept the population down — that it obstructed naturalization and discouraged migration to keep the colonies weak. On this one grievance, the Founders were unambiguously the pro-immigration party. That is simply what the text says.
What the Founders built
They gave the naturalization power to the national legislature, so the nation — not a distant crown — would set the terms:
- U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4: Congress shall have power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The people’s representatives decide who becomes a citizen and how.
This is the hinge of the whole audit on this point: the Constitution answered the grievance not by guaranteeing open borders, but by moving the naturalization decision to the American people’s own legislature. Whatever that legislature decides is, by design, the opposite of a foreign king deciding for them.
The terms, per Black’s
- Naturalization — Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024): the process by which a foreign-born person becomes a citizen of a country.
- Alien — per Black’s, a person who is not a citizen or national of the country in which he or she resides.
- Visa — per Black’s, an official endorsement on a document (usually a passport) permitting the holder to enter or remain in a country for a specified purpose.
The record today
The literal echo of the grievance is administrative, and it is enormous. The grievance’s specific charge was obstructing the laws for naturalization. Today, the system that grants citizenship and legal status is carrying a record 11.6 million pending cases at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as of the fourth quarter of FY2025 — a backlog that has more than tripled since 2016 (from about 3.5 million), according to the American Immigration Council’s analysis of USCIS data. Naturalization applicants wait, on average, 12 to 18 months, and far longer in some cities — a median of about 22 months in Los Angeles in a recent quarter. People eligible to become citizens under the law Congress wrote wait years for the government to process them. Whatever the cause, “obstructing the Laws for Naturalization” is a phrase that describes an 11.6-million-case queue with uncomfortable precision.
And the backlog is bipartisan. It grew across administrations of both parties — tripling over a decade that spanned Democratic and Republican presidents alike. This is not one faction’s doing; it is a systemic, cross-party failure of the government to operate the citizenship machinery at the speed the law contemplates.
The counterweight — which is unusually strong here
State it at full force, because on this grievance the counterweight may be the stronger case. Unlike the colonies under a foreign crown, a sovereign nation has undisputed, long-recognized authority to decide for itself how many people it admits and naturalizes, and at what pace — and the Constitution deliberately vested that authority in Congress precisely so the decision would be American self-government, not its opposite. A backlog can reflect security vetting, resource limits, or deliberate policy choices that a self-governing people is entitled to make; it is not, without more, the tyranny the grievance described, because it is imposed by the people’s own government rather than a distant king. Reasonable citizens across the entire political spectrum support some limits on immigration and naturalization, and disagree in good faith about how many and which — and nothing in the Declaration resolves that debate. The grievance was against a foreign power stunting the colonies; it is not obviously an indictment of a self-governing nation setting its own immigration levels, however restrictive.
That is why this entry renders no verdict on immigration policy, and won’t. The audit’s only finding is narrow and factual: the Founders’ complaint here was about obstruction of naturalization, and the modern naturalization system is obstructed — by a record backlog — whether or not one thinks the underlying policies are wise. What the country should do about immigration is a question for the self-government the Constitution created. This journal reports the words and the numbers; the choice is the people’s.
By the numbers
- Art. I, § 8, cl. 4 — naturalization power vested in Congress, i.e., in American self-government (U.S. Const.)
- 11.6 million — pending USCIS cases, Q4 FY2025, an all-time record (American Immigration Council / USCIS data)
- ~3.3x — growth in the USCIS backlog since 2016 (≈3.5M → 11.6M), across administrations of both parties
- 12–18 months — average naturalization wait, with some cities far higher (≈22 months, Los Angeles) (USCIS processing data)
The audit
The 1776 grievance attacked a king for keeping people out by obstructing naturalization. The 2026 record is a naturalization system buried under a record 11.6 million pending cases, built up across both parties — a literal obstruction of the naturalization laws, sitting inside a nation that, unlike the colonies, has every sovereign right to set its own immigration terms. The grievance’s words echo in the backlog. The grievance’s spirit — a foreign power stunting a people who had no say — does not cleanly transfer to a self-governing country making its own contested choices. The audit reports both, and picks neither side of the policy fight.
Ubi bene, ibi patria — where it goes well, there is home. Who gets to make a home here, and how many, is the oldest American argument. The Constitution answered only who decides: the people, through their Congress.
Next in the series: charters revoked and governments altered — the Founders’ fear of a distant power that could rewrite self-rule from above.
Sources:
- Declaration of Independence (1776) — National Archives transcript
- U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4 — uniform rule of naturalization
- American Immigration Council — USCIS Backlogs and Processing Trends — 11.6M pending; tripling since 2016; wait times
- Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) — definitions: naturalization; alien; visa