The new citizenship test: Would you pass?
 

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement announced a revamping of their citizenship test to make it more relevant. The new pool of 100 questions seeks to focus on more relevant topics in American government and not focus on obscure facts. Some folks say it's a fair question, immigration advocates say the test is now too hard, but I find it difficult to believe that when they have no-brainer questions like, "What happened on September 11, 2001?"

A sample of the new question pool can be found here. You need to answer six of the ten questions correctly to pass, I got seven right. The questions didn't seem that difficult to me. Most of these answers you can get if you read the newspapers and watch the right historical documentaries.

How many questions did you answer correctly?

Interesting find, QuasiMondo. I got 8/10.

Seems to me that anyone that was awake at some point during middle school civics or history should be able to answer at least 3 or 4. If they paid attention, they'd for sure get 6.

What does it say when naturalized citizens know more about how the government works than American-born ones?

I got 9 right.

If you want to become a citizen, you don't just decide one day to walk in and take the test/oath. You plan ahead, you study a little U.S. history and after a couple hours of study everybody should get most of these right.

Though we were in the thick of learning these facts in elementary school and I'm sure I would easily have passed, I "lucked out" when I became a citizen and didn't even have to take the test since I was only about 10 years old, my brother and sister were 2 & 3 years younger, so we all got citizenship when my parents took the test and oath, etc. They were still speaking quite broken English so that made it more challenging for them. I remember teaching them some of the things we were learning in school about civics, government, etc. and they spent significant time studying for it ...proudly both of them aced the test.

It says they'll forget how it works a bit later than we will.

My thoughts exactly. I slept during history and I'm embarrassed to say that I wouldn't be a citizen right now...bummer.

Anyway, I think it does say a lot that people will study for a test and learn about our government/country history to be a part of it. I don't generally chime in on government/political talk, but I think that if a person leaves behind a life in another country, saves the money to make the huge move, possibly learns a new language, and passes a test on the government and history of this country...they've earned the right to live here. Many people just luck into it by being born. That is when the lack of respect and the 'I deserve this...' thought becomes a problem. Those are generally the people that bitch the most, but know nothing of what they are bitching about.

Interesting post.

I passed mine a year and half ago and promptly forgot everything.

I got 8/10, which I figure to be good because eventually I'll have to help my wife study for that citizenship test.

no, i wouldn't. not without studying 1st anyway. Right now I don't know half that crap off the top of my head.

I was doing okay until I got to 5. Do they mean:
"What rights are exclusive to US citizens that you won't find elsewhere?"
or
"What rights are afforded to US citizens versus non-citizens in the US?"

I got all but that one. The wording really leaves much to be desired.

The problem with that 'test' is it speaks almost nothing of values, culture, or ideals.

Knowing how many representatives there are is pointless.

Give me a few hours and I could pass any nations exam at that level. I suppose its better than nothing, but only marginally.

Seems... neutered? It feels like a crappy gameshow.

I'm not an American citizen and I got full marks - I should totally immigrate!

yay, i can be a citizen in my own country...i agree with ustwo up there....

It's a no-brainer to the same extent as "What happened on July 28, 1945?" and approximately as significant an event in American history on that level.

If the answer is keyed for anything other than the most generic description, you're not thinking hard enough about the scope of the question.

/me throws her birth certificate in the trash and packs her bags....


I got D's in History, Social Studies, etc. I guess I got credit for showing up to class...

Oh, don't forget "Civics" class, too.

They didn't have "Civics" class back then....hell, we didn't even have "Civics", the cars :D

The terrorist attacks are referred to by date only. This is the only historical event (aside from the signing of the Declaration of Independence) that is referred to this way. Adding to the no-brainerism is that barely a day goes by where it isn't mentioned somewhere by some anchorman, newspaper, or magazine. Maybe 15 years from now it won't be a no-brainer, but for now, it very much is.

I got 9 out of 10 (I got number 5 wrong, I could only name one not two)

I was expecting to ace it because I was a political science major but I actually missed the Federalist Papers question. I guessed Jefferson. Whoops.

I got 7 out of 10. Seems pretty easy and fair. I'd want any citizen to know what their rights are and where they come from.

i didn't do too great, but it seems really easy to study for

i didn't do too great, but it seems really easy to study for

So I wonder what mentality of American citizen would object to this new test? If I designed any kind of test, I would want it to be somewhat difficult so my bell shaped curve would have a decent spread and I can better evaluate differences.

We had a big family dinner this past Sunday night and I discussed this test with my father-in-law and when I said I thought it was a reasonable test, he freaked out about how hard and impossible and unfair it is. He's not a dumbass, he's an MD, so I attribute it to him being sort of on the socialist side of the fence ...not to mention that anything the current administration does would be cause for him to strongly disagree.

A friend of mine moved here from Jamaica :sp: and had to past the test for citizenship, and I helped him study on occassion. I know I could pass, but I was surprised at some of the questions. I know quite a few born and raised Americans who would probably wind up getting shipped off back to the land of the dumb

-Will

Those things are relative to the observer. How are you supposed to objectively test those things?

that's pretty much the way it goes with driver's tests as well...

this test is moronic- it does nothing to evaluate if the prospect is going to be and upstanding citizen, only if they can parrot back facts our own natural born citizens cannot half the time- so unless they are a history teacher, then this is just pointless paper that wastes time, money, and resources.......

It says it's likely that American-borns tend to watch too much TV and take too much for granted.

Maybe that's a trick question

If you answer "the true belivers struck a glorious blow against the great satan which rang out truly across the earth" then they dont let you in

That only applies to Chicago residents... :D

Bloody teachers pet ;)

I got 2/10, but not really surprising, given I'm not a US citizen, nor am planning to be any time soon :)

Funny thing is Australia has also intro'd one of these lately - that was pretty easy for me. I'll see if I can find the local paper link to ours...

edit:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...066926388.html

in ours i got 19/20 - who has a clue about floral emblems anyway!!

im ashamed in you spindles!

i got 20/20 when i did the aussie one. i got a dismal 3 in the US one too though.

i dont disagree that the interest of the country should be put first when inviting ppl into the country. a test to ensure that they are a willing and contributing member of society is only fair.

It seems to me the test is ensuring immigrants have to put in a minimal amount of work to earn their citizenship, rather than examining what kind of citizen they're going to be. Which, I think, is the way it ought to be; people should have to put in a little bit of work to become citizens.

oops. It looks something complex. I have heard that citizenship can be acquired through investment in any country. Is that true?

No. It's not true.

I believe there's investment provisions to obtain Legal Permanent Residence for Canada, USA and Australia. IIRC, in the USA, you have to invest approximately $1,000,000, employ 10 US workers, and continue to do so for something like 5 years, with revocation of your greencard should you fail to meet requirements a couple of years down the road.

Something like that.

It's been criticized as 'paying for citizenship' so, I believe that's what you're referring to.

But it's not citizenship. It's residency. Big difference.

Right, our military won't come get you if you happen to be in an contested area. But even as an American Bubba won't come get me because I don't have tits.

You aren't afforded the diplomatic resources of the US if you are overseas as a legal resident of the US. You also of course cannot vote in elections though many do and some have been deported for doing so.

You can also be deported if you commit any crimes in the US.

Well, generally, unless your mom is a U.S. Citizen, or you were born in the U.S., you need a green card before you can apply for citizenship.

In other words it's a necessary stepping stone to getting citizenship.

Sorry for getting this thread off topic.

I don't see your point, KirStang, flawed as it is (your dad can be a US citizen too).

Residency is residency. Citizenship is citizenship. They're mutually exclusive. Residency may lead to citizenship but not necessarily. The rights and obligations are very different for each.

The point is, investment in many countries completes a big step on the path to citizenship. It is not per se "not true." Rather if you were loaded and really wanted US citizenship, you can invest the requisite money, get the green card, wait a couple of years, then get citizenship.

Point being, citizenship can be acquired through investment...

Only if they meet physical residence requirements (something like 5 years after reaching the age of 14) and legitimate the child or somehow agree to provide financial support. Hence why I said 'generally.'

Well, if you can't get here legally, you can't do it either. Those countries with full immigration quotas can't invest here to get residency or citizenship. A Mexican cannot just buy a property and get on the path to citizenship.

Having financial means can make the difference of getting a visa to stay here to get to the green card point, but I think that there's a big difference to the idea that just because you can invest in property, company, American stock, you can get a path to citizenship.

I think you may be confusing family based immigration with investment based immigration. Also remember, it has to create 10 permanent jobs, so buying land won't fly.

IIRC Congress sets aside something like 10,000 investment visas a year, many which end up unused.

So, a Mexican with millions of dollars, who thinks he can start a business in the USA, can apply and legally obtain a immigrant visa.

---------- Post added at 12:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 AM ----------

USCIS - Green Card Through Investment

KirStang, I think that it's important to emphasis the "path to citizenship" part, as in there's more than that one step. There are a lot more, and as Cyn pointed out, there's a lot more to it than simply opening a qualifying business here.

That said, I think it's interesting how someone that I keep waiting to spam us has gotten us off on this tangent. Remember this is the same guy that said that

and seems likely to spam us with some sort of St. Kitts imigration/tourism links as soon as possible.

10/10. Although I did have to formulate two different answers based on what Question Five might be, since it was unclear if they wanted rights of US citizens as opposed to elsewhere, or rights of citizens as opposed to resident aliens.

Still, easy test, I thought.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the $1M investment for creating a business.

Any figures of how many actually get dispensed in this manner? That means there's 50,000 jobs created every year but this action.

Sorry, it was my fault--you know how lawyers are. :D

I just wanted to clarify the little known provision. Again, did not mean to sidetrack the thread from the citizenship test (which I would probably fail :))

Anyway, in my opinion it is utterly irrelevant that someone seeking to settle in the US understands or cares about its constitution

The appropriate things to test are:

Can they speak and understand the language they will need to use?
Do they understand the laws and customers they will be expected to live by?

_

If someone comes in from Netherlands to be a research scientist, what possible vaue or difference to her views on the "Federalist Papers" have? Simply making people sit an exam on arbitary information about the structure of government serves only the function of not letting in people who cant be bothered to revise.

err...:orly:

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.

The laws that matter are to do with property, personal protection, etc... it isnt relevant how many members are in the house of representatives.

I doubt 1 in 100 UK citizens could tell you how many MPs there were in the UK parliament, how many peers in the House of Lords, how many MSP's etc etc...

The constitution doesnt make much of a difference to normal people's lives, even though it is considered a semi-religious document in the US.