Should Citizens Have to Pass a Basic Citizenship Test?

[illram]

Well, from your own post the answer is obvious. We dont want any more lunkheads than we already have to put up with.

So basically the rationale is that if you were born here you can enjoy the luxury of being a lunkhead?

If you think thats the only difference, then perhaps you should go through the actual naturalization process. I know a few attorneys who make a pretty good living helping people out with it since its so convoluted and time consuming. Could be a source of income for you - I do remember you saying you were an attorney in California right?

Since the process is already so time consuming and difficult why are we also requiring this piddly little 10 question "exam?"

 

[MobBoss]

So basically the rationale is that if you were born here you can enjoy the luxury of being a lunkhead?

Before I answer that let me ask you. Do you want more such lunkheads in the country?

Since the process is already so time consuming and difficult why are we also requiring this piddly little 10 question "exam?"

My impression is that there is more to it than just that. But to answer your question, why do we require a 'piddly little exam' for anything? Like drivers licenses for instance? You could also make the similar allegation that most people driving on the road would probably fail a no-notice drivers license test as well. Does that make them all knuckle dragging lunkheads?

 

[Formaldehyde]

15. How many representatives are there in Congress?
50
100
102
435

Ha. A lot of people should have lost their jobs over this...

we have people burning the flag within the border...

Ironically, I would say your own opinion of the First Amendment, and why this activity is protected, should be sufficient reason for your own citizenship to be revoked under the way you think things should work...

 

[MobBoss]

Ironically, I would say your ignorance of the First Amendment should be sufficient reason for your own citizenship to be revoked under the way you think things should work...

I think a lot of peoples citizenship should be revoked for thinking the First Amendment is an excuse for being able to say anything you want/desire. Its not.

And I for one, would be in favor of an amendment making our national symbol immune to such treatment.

 

[illram]

Before I answer that let me ask you. Do you want more such lunkheads in the country?

1) I am concerned that our new immigrant friends are being given the unfair advantage of having a basic understanding of US civics over our own resident lunkheads; and 2) If being ignorant of basic US Civics is enough to disqualify immigrants why do we accept such simple-mindedness of our own citizens? Because they were born here? Isn't that even worse?

My impression is that there is more to it than just that. But to answer your question, why do we require a 'piddly little exam' for anything? Like drivers licenses for instance? You could also make the similar allegation that most people driving on the road would probably fail a no-notice drivers license test as well. Does that make them all knuckle dragging lunkheads?

1) Everyone has to pass a driver's test once regardless of where you were born; 2) Usually you have to take it again if you clearly exhibit incompetence and/or lack of judgment; 3) If you don't know how to drive you may kill 1 or more people including yourself. This seems very different to me.

 

[Slobadog]

I think we should also build a shrine to the test administers.

 

[Brighteye]

Go down that line of thinking (namely, that all people are, and ought to be, born equal) and you'll ultimately conclude that authority, in any form, is unjust (as authority is, essentially, inequality). Hence, people need to get special advantages based on birth, because if they didn't it, would result in anarchy, which is, for some reason, bad.

It's a shame that people are not born equal though. They differ wildly, and I like it that way.

Most every country has birthright citizenship. It's an easy means of accounting.

Is easy necessarily both good and best?

 

[Bamspeedy]

1) I am concerned that our new immigrant friends are being given the unfair advantage of having a basic understanding of US civics over our own resident lunkheads; and 2) If being ignorant of basic US Civics is enough to disqualify immigrants why do we accept such simple-mindedness of our own citizens? Because they were born here? Isn't that even worse?

The testing of citizenship knowledge is only required once. For people born here they get taught it and tested on it during civics-type classes during school, and for immigrants they get taught and tested on it to earn citizenship.

If people choose to forget what they learned after taking the test, that is their right whether they were born here or were immigrants. If you are proposing that those born here would have to re-take the test later in life, then so should the immigrants who currently don't have to do such a thing (taking the test again, years after passing it).

 

[Shadylookin]

Ah...so it was 'designed' to take kids born here away from their illegal parents? That VRCWAgents comment about keeping the kid, but booting the illegal mother back to where she came from is the plan?

Right.

Why dont you admit that yes, the rule is indeed badly designed, not very well thought out, and is indeed a loophole.

Well look at the facts. We invaded Mexico and took a crapload of their land in the 1840s. The Mexicans living here just didn't up and leave once it was all said and done. In the 1860s we reaffirmed through the 14th constitutional amendment birthright citizenship knowing full well all these Mexicans were inside our territory.

At least that way it would make some sense. Cause I have a real hard time grasping someone actually thinking this through and making a situation where an illegal parent has to be deported while their infant stays here.


That would be great except it doesnt happen. Why? Because people readily see that depoting a kids illegal parents is hugely unfair to the child.

Again, a loophole for illegals to gain access to this country illegally.

Well you might as well have a reality check. The federal government doesn't really give a hoot about illegal immigration. Every so often they get all hot and bothered about it at a congressional session, but in the end nothing ever happens. If the federal government cared(which they don't) they would deport the mother and give her a choice to take the baby with her(which she'd probably do) or keep it here in foster care. This would eliminate the incentive for women to come here and pop out children.

It's the only possible solution if you consider this a problem. The removal of birthright citizenship would take a constitutional amendment to pass whereas this would take a simple policy change.

 

[illram]

The testing of citizenship knowledge is only required once. For people born here they get taught it and tested on it during civics-type classes during school, and for immigrants they get taught and tested on it to earn citizenship.

I could have failed every test I was ever given on social studies and/or history in school and still be a citizen. Passing a basic civics/history exam is not a condition precedent to obtaining constitutionally protected rights. For an immigrant it is. Why?

 

[Slobadog]

I think the pledge of allegience should start out with "I pledge allegience to the test administers who give us our freedom."

 

[Earthling]

I could have failed every test I was ever given on social studies and/or history in school and still be a citizen. Passing a basic civics/history exam is not a condition precedent to obtaining constitutionally protected rights. For an immigrant it is. Why?

First, it's not a precondition to ALL constitutional rights, which is an important distinction. But the main reason is that by necessity there has to be some system of immigration in the nation today because the country and government would be unable to handle an unlimited number of immigrants and suffer consequences if that were the case. This is probably true in most nations these days, and so while a citizenship test isn't necessarily the only or perfect requirement it's one of many that contributes to a reasonable naturalization process.

 

[illram]

First, it's not a precondition to ALL constitutional rights, which is an important distinction.

So it's OK to make answering correctly 6 out of 10 questions on basic civics a precondition to "some" constitutional rights?

But the main reason is that by necessity there has to be some system of immigration in the nation today because the country and government would be unable to handle an unlimited number of immigrants and suffer consequences if that were the case. This is probably true in most nations these days, and so while a citizenship test isn't necessarily the only or perfect requirement it's one of many that contributes to a reasonable naturalization process.

How do these questions contribute to the reasonableness of the current process if we do not hold our own current citizens to the same threshold for obtaining the protection of the same constitutional rights?

 

[Earthling]

The key point is, what we hold our own citizens up to is irrelevant because there is no public support or reason to do something to them, on top of the sheer impracticality of denying citizenship. The world is kinda full, we can't exactly kick people out to go wherever, so we're stuck with letting people who are born and live here stay here. So civics examinations, along with residency requirements, law-abiding backgrounds etc... should be judged on the basis of their contribution to the naturalization process. I'd agree the lame little civics test we have isn't perfect but it's not terrible either for ensuring a future citizens awareness and ability to participate in government.

 

[illram]

The key point is, what we hold our own citizens up to is irrelevant because there is no public support or reason to do something to them, on top of the sheer impracticality of denying citizenship. The world is kinda full, we can't exactly kick people out to go wherever, so we're stuck with letting people who are born and live here stay here. So civics examinations, along with residency requirements, law-abiding backgrounds etc... should be judged on the basis of their contribution to the naturalization process. I'd agree the lame little civics test we have isn't perfect but it's not terrible either for ensuring a future citizens awareness and ability to participate in government.

So should basic civic knowledge should be a prerequisite to government protection of constitutional rights where it is practical to do so?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

That depends on what you mean by Constitutional Rights. It should certainly not be a prerequisite of the basic human rights protected by the Constitution, but it is entirely reasonable to require basic civic knowledge in order to participate in the political process as voters or candidates.

There is no need to try to make everyone a citizen, or to only let citizens stay in the country.

 

[Earthling]

illram - well yes, and again with the caveat that I don't see it being practical or feasible to enforce in the modern world right now to do so for everyone. And I'd agree with MagisterCultuum on the distinction between "citizen rights" and human rights as I mentioned before.

 

[Cutlass]

I consider a senator one of my representatives. I voted for him to to represent me in the senate. If they wanted to be explicit, they should have said House of Representatives. This why I don't think such a test should exist. It's ambiguous enough without trying to be, but then try doing it without English as a first language.

Zealot, you're entirely right. When CONGRESS is referred, it is 535 (technically only voting members, there are a few non-voting members. Cutlass is incorrect.

15. How many representatives are there in Congress?
50
100
102
435

Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 2 - The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.


Section 3 - The Senate

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State

Section 4 - Elections, Meetings

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives

Section 6 - Compensation

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services....

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

...

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights.

...

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms.

1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,....

Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia.

1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State,...

Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress,...

Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Why do we have 100 Senators and 435 Members of the House? Could these numbers be changed?

The number of Senators is set by the U.S. Constitution — two per state — and cannot be changed without amending the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is a long and difficult process. It requires a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification (approval) by 3/4 of all the states. The Senate reached 100 members when Hawaii was admitted as a state in 1959. The number of House Members is set by public law and could be altered were Congress to pass a new public law changing the size of the House. The House of Representatives has had 435 Members since 1911. When Congress was created in 1789, there were 65 House Members and 26 Senators. In the First Congress, a Member of the House represented 30,000 citizens. Today, a Congressman/woman represents an average of 650,000 citizens.

http://www.centeroncongress.org/learn_about/feature/qa_members.html#why100



It seems pretty clear to me that in the language of the Constitution Senators are not Representatives, and Representatives are not Senators. So regardless of what current popular language usage may be, there are 435 Representatives in Congress.


Now could, and should, the writers of the test done a clearer job? Certainly. But I don't see anything that is technically inaccurate.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

What if we agree that Senators are representatives but not Representatives?


Also, when the Constitution was written Senators represented the interests of the state legislatures that appointed them, and so were not direct representatives of the people of the state. That has changed.

 

[Slobadog]

Only Test administers should be allowed to be senator's.