New Test

[internetkafe 0]

Have you heard the news?

USCIS is changing the citizenship test and planning dramatic increase in fees for naturalization application.

The new questions will make the 'test' subjective so if they do not like the person being tested (his/her culture/religion/country of birth/even the appearance and behavior of the applicant at the time of testing) they can fail them without probability of being held accountable. The USCIS had been delaying processing of many applicants because they came from Muslim nations. These applicants hired lawyers to make sure fairness is the only criteria deciding USCIS' course of action. Now the USCIS is getting off the hook with this new test allowing them to be as subjective as they please.

***

from the November 17, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1117/p03s02-ussc.html

US to unveil new citizenship test

Starting this winter, questions will center on American ideals rather than historical facts.

By Ben Arnoldy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BOSTON

To gain American citizenship, immigrants must be able to answer such questions as: What was the 49th state added to our Union? What color are the stars on our flag? And who wrote the Star Spangled Banner?

Sound trivial? The US government thinks so, and plans to roll out a new pilot test this winter.

It will continue to be an oral test, conducted in English, and will have 10 questions. Six correct answers will earn a passing grade. But the content, which is tightly under wraps, is expected to shun simple historical facts about America that can be recounted in a few words for more explanation about the principles of American democracy, such as freedom.

The changes raise the bar - critics say too high - for immigrants to show not only that they care enough to study for a test, but also that they understand and share American values. Behind the shift is rising anxiety among Americans about high levels of immigration and European troubles with large, unassimilated communities, say observers.

"Whenever there is a large number of immigrants, people talk about having an assimilation policy," says John Fonte, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a think tank in Washington. "We've always had an Americanization policy of some type [but] we haven't so much in the last 20, 30 years.... I'd see this as continuing that tradition, which Europe did not do."

Immigrant advocacy groups are wary of the changes, which coincide with a review at the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency that is expected to call for a substantial hike in the $400 citizenship application fees.

"The administration is putting up [another] wall to citizenship for immigrants between a longer application process, higher fees, and what may very well be a more difficult test," says Ali Noorani, of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. "Immigration is a culture war today. Is the way to lessen the rhetoric in that war to administer a new test?"

Mr. Noorani is withholding final judgment on the changes until they become public Nov. 29.

The revisions are an effort, say officials, to make the test a more teachable moment - without making it more difficult. The questions and answers - which will be publicly available - are expected to draw on concepts in the nation's founding documents. The pilot will be rolled out on a trial basis in 10 cities across the country, including Boston. If participants fail, they can retake the regular test, a test that very few fail.

"Look at the Bill of Rights and some of the values and rights that are enshrined in [it]. Those could possibly be test question topics [as could] the meaning of democracy, the meaning of freedom," says Shawn Saucier, spokesman for the USCIS, adding that some immigrants "come from a culture, a government, a society that is completely removed from our concept of government."

Historians with the USCIS explain that officials have long tried to determine whether a potential citizen feels "attachment" to America. For years that has been interpreted as demonstrating knowledge of the country. The purchase of war bonds and participation in wartime recycling were also seen as proof of attachment.

Canada offers a test similar to the current US one. Other Western nations that are concerned about assimilation are now requiring tests, says Mr. Fonte, and some are taking it a step further. The Netherlands shows a video featuring gay men and beach-going women to ensure that newcomers - particularly Muslims - will be comfortable with the country's liberal social mores. Australia is reportedly considering a test with questions about the sport of cricket.

The changes in the US bring the test closer to the notion sweeping Europe that gaining citizenship requires subscribing to a set of shared values - though no one is likely to be quizzed about the ins and outs of baseball any time soon.

"The receiving nations have been more or less acquiescent - and in a certain sense dissuaded - from foisting expectations of robust civic attachment on the part of the newcomers. And that has had consequences," says John Keeley at the Center for Immigration Studies, citing the terror plots in Britain. "Now we are reconceptualizing what our expectations are."

Fred Tsao, of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, doubts attachment can be discerned from a test, and blames some of Europe's troubles on unwelcoming policies. His organization joined more than 220 immigrant groups in sending a letter to the USCIS, stating concerns that the new test will raise the bar too high for those with less education.

Both sides agree that citizenship tests are not the only part of assimilation. "For somebody who has come to America for political or religious freedom, every single day is a learning moment, every single day is a moment to cherish. The assumption that a test is going to capture all of that and make everybody get along is a little bit delusional," says Noorani.

Still, the citizenship process has been meaningful for many immigrants, experts say.

"It's valuable as a ritual. Just like someone who is [undergoing] a first communion or a bar mitzvah, they are learning something beforehand, they are going through this process, and there's a ritual or a ceremony at the end ... that's very emotional for people," says Fonte.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Interesting. Just as a matter of curiosity, I would be interested in having the current US citizenship test questions administered to many of the elected members of the US government and seeing the results of their tests posted. The US is usually pretty good at teaching US civics and history, however, it appears that many citizens tend to forget what they learned as children. Accordingly, I have heard some incredibly ignorant and incorrect statements about US history and politics from some native born citizens who, you think, would know better.

[sparkofcreation 0]

I'm not surprised. My best friend's B-I-L is from Pakistan and his naturalization was held up for over two years after his interview while they kept insisting he hadn't sent all the necessary documents (first his birth certificate, then his last three tax returns, then his marriage certificate, then all of his tax returns since being in the US ...) and they finally had to hire a lawyer to get him approved. His interview was June 2004 and he was naturalized in August 2006.

This sounds dangerously like "Show us how much you agree with George Bush or you can go back where you came from!" to me.

And ... questions about cricket? Does every Australian know the sport inside and out, or are there Australians who loathe it and couldn't care less, just as I loathe football and couldn't care less about baseball.

Edited November 26, 2006 by sparkofcreation

[internetkafe 0]

Hello Kathryn41,

I completely agree with you.

Their excuse for introducing these though tests and other 'criteria' and longer waits & higher fees is the claim that immigrants will feel more attachment to America with these changes. The contrary might be true also. If you want to make immigrants feel included and as a part of the people/nation you should not increase the exclusionary measures... you should not make the time period longer for them to be a part of the people.

What is the most important right the citizens have? Voting. What percentage of citizens actually took part in elections recently? I bet it is less than 50%. On the one hand you have citizens who do not exercize their rights but on the other hand there are immigrants who do not have this right but would want to vote. Because voting is what makes you feel that you exist. If you can not make your voice heard in this way you may as well cease existing. This reminds me of ancient greece where some part of the society was not allowed to vote.

I'm not surprised. My best friend's B-I-L is from Pakistan and his naturalization was held up for over two years after his interview while they kept insisting he hadn't sent all the necessary documents (first his birth certificate, then his last three tax returns, then his marriage certificate, then all of his tax returns since being in the US ...) and they finally had to hire a lawyer to get him approved. His interview was June 2004 and he was naturalized in August 2006.

This sounds dangerously like "Show us how much you agree with George Bush or you can go back where you came from!" to me.

And ... questions about cricket? Does every Australian know the sport inside and out, or are there Australians who loathe it and couldn't care less, just as I loathe football and couldn't care less about baseball.

Hello Sparkofcreation,

That is scary! But the authorities should make it clear before anybody immigrates that if you are from a certain culture/religion you will not be given the opportunity to have the same rights as most people living there.

[Waiting and Waiting 0]

I heard the fee could double to $800 on CNN this past weekend.

[Henia 11]

I heard the fee could double to $800 on CNN this past weekend.

$800 ? OUCH!

[internetkafe 0]

It is not the increased fee that should be main reason for concern. It is the new ambigious -not clearly defined- system for naturalization. It is the increased discretionary power given to the USCIS workers. Among USCIS employees there are ones who got just a short and rudimentary training to carry out their duties. How can anyone expect them to be fair in making judgements on such a crucial matter to millions of people?

Even under the current system many applicants for naturalization claim to be unfairly treated. The processing of their cases is being delayed with no reason/explanation.

There are no one right answer for the questions in the new citizenship test. There are many right answers. Who will decide if one right answer is really right and how? Are there going to be any guarantees that no other consideration (like religion, race, country of origin) will play a role in naturalizing applicants? Is there going to be a fast and effective means of appeal in case of a denial based on defective & impartial judgement on the part of USCIS personnel?

Are there any guarantees that this new system will not be used as a means of discriminating against some people? Will the new Democratic-majority Congress do anything to make sure that the process of naturalization is not made any harder and everyone's case will be processed fairly and without discrimination?