New Citizenship Exam
One of the constant features in the bishops’ discussions of immigration has been their insistence on a “path to citizenship” for both legal and undocumented immigrants.
Just as constant has been conservative opposition, particularly from those on the far right, to the facilitation of that transition. One of the most extreme proposals by Republican opponents of immigration in recent years, for example, has been the consideration of a statute that would eliminate, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. (Note, the birthright citizenship provision in the Fourteenth Amendment was added to that amendment in order to undo the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision.)
In light of this political context, it’s worth noting that the federal government is currently considering changes to the citizenship exam that would, among other things, make the questions more difficult, thereby increasing the hurdles for immigrants seeking to obtain citizenship. I’m all in favor of requiring new citizens to demonstrate a basic understanding of our system of government, and the questions in the old test did seem to be in need of revision, but some of the more open-ended questions under consideration, such as, “what is the rule of law?” or “what is self government?” or “what is the freedom of religion?” would be difficult for most American citizens to answer.
In fact, yesterday on NPR’s All Things Considered, Robert Smith walked around New York City, asking people to answer some of the tougher questions. Most people could not. One woman, from Tulsa, Oklahoma, was stumped when asked to answer the questions about “rule of law” and “self-government.” When Smith asked her whether these questions, which she herself could not answer, would be fair to ask of immigrants seeking to become citizens, she said yes, explaining that, in her view, the questions should be as hard as possible. Lovely.
As I said, I can see the reasons for requiring those seeking citizenship to demonstrate a basic knowledge of our political and even cultural institutions, but I’m having a hard time coming up with a reason, other than opposition to naturalization, for requiring immigrants to demonstrate a level of civics knowledge beyond that of the typical American citizen.
I think that indeed “opposition to naturalization” is all that’s really going on here, among conservatives. The flip side of this coin is the alarming lack of civic knowledge among ordinary citizens. The questions on NPR’s test were not particularly hard.
In any event, that people are hypocrites is not exactly hot news…..
An interesting alternative. The test required of new citizens ought to be adminstered to all citizens as a pre-requirement for voting.
” I’m having a hard time coming up with a reason, other than opposition to naturalization, for requiring immigrants to demonstrate a level of civics knowledge beyond that of the typical American citizen.”
I’m sure that opposition to immigrants has something to do with it.
Still, consider the fact that virtually any test or qualifying examination for anything requires a level of knowledge that lots of people couldn’t remember. For example, lawyers have to pass the bar exam. But how many practicing lawyers a few years out could recite all of the following: the elements of burglary; the order of intestate succession in 10 or 12 different types of families; the Rule in Shelley’s Case; the procedure for establishing an LLP; and several dozen other topics? I’ve passed two bar exams in the past 5 years, and I know that I studied all of that information, but I couldn’t tell you any of the substantive rules today without a refresher. Does that mean that if I want lawyers to take a bar exam, I therefore “oppose allowing people to become lawyers”? (Well, maybe so, but it’s not *necessarily* the case.)
Same for any test that you can think of. I have no doubt that a lot of doctors don’t remember everything they studied for their medical boards; a lot of 20-somethings don’t remember every detail of the math, science, and history that they studied in high school; etc., etc. Again, does this mean that we should do away with all of those tests or qualifying examinations, or that anyone who supports a qualifying test is “opposed to doctors” or “opposed to high school students”?
Granted, if it turns out that prospective lawyers, doctors, high school graduates, etc., are required to learn a lot of information that truly is useless (which is certainly the case for bar exams), then we can certainly have a useful discussion about whether the tests pose a needless hurdle, or how to tailor a test to what people really need to know. Still, I think there are many areas where it remains a good idea to make people master a particular subject even though we know that many of them may (unfortunately) forget it at some point.
Nonsense – and nonsense again. My grandfather (now deceased), who was naturalized 80 years ago often commented that he had to know more about America and the US Government than any native born American did. This is nothing new. If the standard is to be what the average American knows, let’s just not have a standard because the average American doesn’t have to know anything.
This post reflects a fundamental difference in understanding about what naturalization means. Until the last thirty years or so, no one, especially natualized citizens themselves, considered obtaining US citizenship a right that they had, it was a privilege they earned and a responsibility they took on. Many of us know this from our own parents and grandparents. This sense of citizenship, that many native born Americans don’t have, has been a vital part of our history.
These questions sound too open-ended to me, but I would never think the questions are “too hard.”
I think Joe Gannon is on to something. Create a booklet of basic civics that all Americans should know, make it available in many different languages, and require all Americans–naturalization candidates and citizens alike –to show proficiency. Joe suggests making proficiency a prerequisite to voting. That’s a good idea, though some might choose not to vote instead of educating themselves. I suggest linking proficiency to something almost everyone craves…having a driver’s license. Either that, or season’s tickets along the first base line at Yankee Stadium.
We have enough trouble getting people to vote as is. If we start making them PROVE that they actually know something about our government, so much for government by the people.
Woeful ignorance and rampant consumerism are inalienable rights of folks who are accidently born in this country. How dare those who want to move here and take up citizenship think that they should have it so easy!
Call me Cynical in California
For several years, my wife volunteered at our local college extension working one on one with individuals in ESL; they were all oriental and all well educated in their home countries.
She also helped them prepare forcitizenship exam and saw the difficulties, part of which was language related.
It’s easy for us boirn here to be glib about the test. It also strikes me that it’s only in the past couple of years that the immigration issue has arisen and that it’s been a political force driving it for many. While many proponents of reform are sincere, there ‘s also an almost unacknowledged area of xenop[hobia that is untouched.
I would even assert that it basically involves Latinos.
I guess I wonder how much hard self examination those who decalim on the issue practice.
Robert,
Hold on the xenophobic stuff just yet. I know of no other country, and I have been to a few, where official government documents and even ballots are routinely printed languages other than the official one(s). When I stepped into an Italian or Hungarian hospital, I don’t remember seeing signs telling me my right to get a translator like I do in at least 8 languages in my local emegency room. Even in the parts of the Italian Alps where people speak German, all the offical notices etc. are in Italian.
We require translators for court proceedings – not so many other countries. Police interrogations can be tossed for the lack of an interpreter. Working with the Italians and Germans I can tell you the only reason for a translator, if they used one, was to get more information, not to protect the accused.
We also, despite our already loose immigration enforcement, provide more process and rights to immigrants – both legal and illegal – than any other country.
I also know that most other countries – including our more “enlightened” European friends – require full fluency in the native tongue and basic knowledge of national law to naturalize someone. Requiring some level of this is just common sense, not prejudice.
I guess I wasn’t clear. Noone’s saying the policies of this country are xenophobic.
The point is that the political discourse on this matter in recent years may well play into the prejudices of some against particularly Latinos.
‘Clearly also, immigration practice, including citizenship exams, could use some reform – it would be well if we could feel it is objective and dispassionate.
I just don’t get this whole conversation about the “immigration problem” or the “illegals problem.”
As far as I can see, the only reason there’s an “immigration problem” is because we’ve loaded on all these rules about immigration.
It’s the rules that make immigrants hide out, and I think that delays their assimilation, because if you’re ducking the authorities, you’re afraid to learn English, get your kids vaccinated, look for a better job or get to know your neighbors.
My mother’s people came to Michigan by way of Canada. Illegals every one of them. They had money, bought a farm. When they got their first tax bill, they went right out and registered to vote. Nobody questioned it because they had a local address and they paid their taxes.
They talked funny, ate weird food, and sang sad songs for awhile. They married local people. They had kids.
Now they’re us.
Maybe I’m being impossibly naive, but it seems to me that’s how it ought to be.
On the other hand, there is something to be said for learning by osmosis, just being in the US.
I don’t have a problem with this test, if a test is needed. Something more open-ended (and likely enlightening) would be to give prospective citizens an option to write an essay or give a speech on why they want to be an American. Essay and/or oral exams would be an interesting way to go.
Jimmy Mac is dead right about voting. Suggesting a test for voting rights is about as … well … Republican as it gets. Party members would get a free pass, as this seems like a potential Stephen Colbert trap in getting somebody to recite the Ten Commandments.
It is misleading, bordering on dishonest, to refer to our nation as a “nation of immigrants.”
My ancestors were settlers, not immigrants, at least in the sense in which the word is used today. It is true that they were given a relatively free pass to do as they liked. But this was because they were solely responsible for their own livelihood for creating their own institutions. They built towns, schools, hospitals, churches and organizations committed to the general welfare. They were given nothing. Nothing. They demanded and expected nothing. Nothing.
I will be accused of sounding exclusionary or xenophobic. I only mean to draw a distinction that is relevant to our discussion.
My policy is to admit as many immigrants as is consistent with the common good of this country and others.
My own ancestors, I am proud to say, were indeed immigrants (Ireland, Norway, Belgium) who arrived in the USA in an urban environment in the late 19th and early 20th century. They too demanded nothing (except respect for their human dignity, which they often did not get), and they expected nothing. They would have received nothing and gotten nowhere, too, were it not for instututions, such as the labor movement, which are difficult to be found nowadays. The point, being, perhaps, that responsibility and self-reliance never occurs in a social and political vacuum. Immigration today is a very different thing from 100, or 150 years ago. (Without the Homestead Act, there’d be little to settle…..)
That said, I think it is entirely reasonable to expect immigrants to demonstrate that they can handle civic responsibility. What’s appalling that so many born-citizens couldn’t meet that minimum. (And yes, “citizenship tests” for born-citizens are bad ideas, invitations to political abuse.) You must learn to be a citizen, but civics, as opposed to american history as a bag of facts, is largely ignored. Moreover education-as-such as a specifically civic good — as opposed to someting designed to help individuals in the job market — is lamentably underemphasized. The market has eaten away at these public spaces of education,deliberation and commonality, so perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised. (Nor should we be surprised that the visissitudes of the market are why so many people want to emigrate in the first place.) Until we subordinate the goods of market production and consumption to the common good, ironies like citizenship exams most citizens couldn’t themselves pass will abound.
Not immigrants but settlers?
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/12/freedom_river.html
Settler? Immigrant?
An immigrant is just somebody who shows up from somewhere else.
That immigrant may also be a settler, that is, someone who shows up where the “somewhere else” isn’t setled, and proceeds to farm or build infrastructure.
To say that settlers asked for nothing but the fruits of their labor is misleading and borders on dishonesty, if you ask me.
The settlers asked for–more often seized–land that native people were using. As far as I know, the original inhabitants didn’t exactly invite anybody to come on over and settle in.
I’m sure, though, that that’s the bleeding-heart, liberal (ergo misleading and dishonest) version of the situation.
Maybe it’s my HR background here, but why should an immigrant be required to know U.S. history or to write an essay on “Why I want to become a U.S. citizen” or to answer knowledge questions that, sadly, even native-born citizens cannot answer?
In lieu of the current examining approach, I suggest Uncle Sam merely give a telephone book to a candidate and ask him/her to find information on how to vote, register a motor vehicle, sign up for classes, survive a tornado/earthquake/flood, find a phone number, call police/fire/ems, etc. The exam should be practical and valid, that is, it should be a reasonable predictor of how a person will fare as s/he is assimilated into society.
Focus on the survival essentials. Cut the crap.