With the recent revealing of a new citizenship test, I wondered: how many born U.S. citizens would pass the test?
If you're a few years removed from school, some questions may escape your memory. I mean, how many people remember what the Philadelphia Convention is after taking a history course several years before?
Nonetheless, I feel that the test is now begrudgingly difficult, yet I know, deep down, that there are many people who could easily fail. Natural born American citizens dodge this exam for their well valued citizenship; immigrants receive it through the basic education of this country's history.
I'm not against testing immigrants on U.S. History in order to grant them citizenship; wouldn't it be logical to learn about the country you are declaring loyalty to?
But on this same idea, should born American citizens not have to pay as much attention to facts about the nation, just because they were born within the country?
I questioned this for several reasons; my parents came to the United States from India when my sister was a few months old. I was born in Brooklyn, making me the first "American" in my entire family. My father and mother always held a great interest in this country's history and politics; my immediate family now holds American citizenship.
I wonder...if I were alone in this country and a citizen of another nation, how would I approach earning American citizenship? Would I even want it?
Is there a difference between natural born citizens and immigrants who become citizens later on? If so, is one more favorable than the other? Please don't interpret anything written here as a distinct answer - I'm pretty confused myself. Share your thoughts!
Regards,
Kanika
PS- If you'd like to take a version of the test, go to:
http://noticias.aol.com/inmigracion/quiz/citizenship/?icid=100214839x121...
I think the test is ridiculous, and so do a lot of immigrants, hence the issue with illegal immigrants. Perhaps it would be more reasonable if the test were on BASIC history and shared values of the country. This seems a bit more reasonable to ask of people who are pledging allegiance. I don't really like the history of some European nations, but I still wouldn't mind living there, based on where they are today. Yes, the past is important, but really, what is more relevant to the issue of allegiance?
Is there a difference between natural born citizens and immigrants who become citizens later on? If so, is one more favorable than the other?
Yes. Only native born citizens can serve as President. Otherwise, the law treats the native born and the naturalized very equally. I think certain things can cause the naturalized to be stripped of citizenship but it is mainly fraud on their applications that would cause this.
Personally, I wish the difference were much more profound!
We should be far more selective about who we allow to immigrate. We are stuck with our native born. If they are stupid, or criminally inclined, unhealthy or otherwise flawed in whatever way, we have no choice but to keep them.
With immigrants we could write laws that were much much more selective. We could cherry pick the world for the best and the brightest. I would favor a points sytem that rewarded educational attainment, English ability, capital and the ability to create jobs, youth, and other qualities. We could screen more carefully for health. And we could be much more restrictive about allowing older immigrants that border our social services without working here long enough to pay in.
The difference should be that immigrants should be selected to be the BEST Americans.
Our history teacher made us take this as a pop quiz in class....only three people passed out of 18: I was one of them.
Definitely there should be a test about American History before one can become a legal citizen. It should not be necessary for natural born citizens because every natural born citizen is required to go to school and study social studies and american history for x amount of years. it balances out.