Within this course, we looked at the US Citizenship test and saw what it takes to become a US citizen. However, there are certain questions that seem to me not to be useful, and I believe changing them would be helpful to bring more dedicated citizens to the US. Speaking upon the subject of immigration, I should mention an experience outside the school building I was participating in. It was a council meeting with several aldermen discussing a new policy from Homeland Security that, for most opinions, seems detrimental to the immigrant community. The argument against the policy, though repeated, was strong as it tacked how immigrants perceived the policy to be a black and white choice between having safety or having health/economic strength. Within the council meeting, a representative of both the hispanic and eastern community, Fred Sou, states the fact that ⅓ of native born citizens would fail at the test. This is important because despite the test to be simple, the knowledge is irrelevant all together for most people. To give better context, the premises for the test are. Since there are 100 questions that are randomly picked, a person must have a generalized knowledge of everything. Since there is a generalized knowledge of everything, it could be considered fair. Since the questions are also 1 sentence, there is no need for extreme studying. Due to the lack of extreme study, it makes the test seem easy enough for the average person to take it. Therefore, the test could be taken by anyone without much problems. However, even with the test being simple, it is almost impossible to take it due to the ranges of study one must seek. Being forced to cram facts that hold no substance nor significance through one word explanations. This is similar to public education, where there is a temporary fact a person must learn and never use it again. So even if a person could study a range of information within the US, they would already forget a potential answer due to its insignificance (to the applicants) . This is what I wish to change about the US Citizenship test. Rather than forcing a person to learn about insignificant facts that only have a 10% chance of coming up, the applicant should research the three questions listed below that are open to new ideas and systems. This would highly improve the rate of applicants being accepted into the US as it brings a certain focus onto specific questions. Now, the reason I choose these question is not of random picking, but rather they have the potential for substance. If driven deeper, a person could have a strong argument or learn a whole system of government based around the research they have done. My focus for these questions is “What do people really know about the US?” as well as “What do they believe of the US?”. However, this must be under the assumption that the applicants had already studied
on the US and it’s branches of government. Even though some might see the questions challenging, the study through a person shows how determined they are to make a point. The first question is from the section “Principles of Democracy”, where it takes about certain terms on the government law making. For this question, I would be changing “What is the Supreme Law of the Land” to “ How did one (anyone) of the amendments come into the constitution and what motivation accord was there to make said amendments “self evident”?” The original question seemed to be flawed and doesn’t show who the applicant is. Since the original question only wanted a singular fact, it does not show us how strong the person is with US history, or why the principles matter in the first place. This is especially important since it ask the question of the applicants “What do they expect of the US” or “Are they planning to gain something from the US with nothing in return?”. There are also certain advantages to this new question as well. 1. It could create assumptions depending on which amendment they focus and where they fall within the political spectrum. (Example: If they talked about guns in a passionate way, links could be created where they follow a more republican view.) 2. It could show the history the application learned from and how much they know from the US. 3. Could show if the person believes more that the people control the US or the government officials showing the US depending the perspective they write one. (ie, if they look at the motivation of founding fathers or of common folk. Of course, there are a few flaws that could arise from this process. These being the separation of certain states or rejection of ideologies of certain people. But at minimum, it gives the person a voice and could show why they would come to the US in the first place. The second question stems from the section called “Systems of Government,” which also follows singular questions on certain parts of the US legal system. This question is flawed because it highlights the name of highest power, and therefore implies that the other two branches have less significance. Since it does only focus on “executive branch”, there isn’t any room to explain the other two branches. Not to mention the first branch is mentioned without its limitations or why it is important in the first place. Since this question is straightforward, there is no need to understand the US system or why it matters that there are limitations. So, for this question, it should be a more “teacher” like approach wherein the applicant must explain it to the staff in a way such as a class. The original question being:
“Who is in charge of the Executive branch” to “How do the branches of government keep each other in check.” This change in the question gives of exciting results and gives us information on the applicant in certain ways. 1. It shows that the attendant had either lived within a society that teaches and uses this form of government, or that they have studied the system well enough to care and eventually participate. (If they wish to change laws in a regional/state status.) 2. It shows the staff that they know the process of laws and how their wishes from the state will not be quick or easy, giving of an idea of patience of the system from the attendant. 3. Could allow the attendant themselves to reflect on entering this country and if they agree with the system. However, certain problems could come out of this new system. There could be a person who is skilled at convincing while at the same time not knowing much about the system itself. Meanwhile, there could be a person who does know about the system yet isn’t good at presenting. Even with these problems, a good method of a student that understands their subjects is if said student can teach a lesson using that information. This method will help us understand if the attendant truly does know the system and their dedication to understand US government. The third question is from the section “Colonial Period and Independence”. This section is asking the history of certain periods and why they matter. However, even though it doesn’t need one word, the answer still simplifies the subject rather than giving the nuance it deserves. In short, the answer to this question is “for freedom”, but the longer question contains more information which could lead to a good argument. However, a simplistic answer can be just as correct as a complex answer due to how the question is structured. So I would change the question to be more specific and force a more complex answer from the applicant. The question being: “Why did the British fight the colonists” to “ What were arguments that helped Americans separate themselves from British and create war?” With this question, the staff could understand that the attendant: 1. Knows about US history and has a preference on which subject they choose to study (i.e. the amendments) 2. This is also opinion-based and could create a good argument that includes our history with a new perspective. Though it has similar problem like the first question, it shows the applicants research on the subject. Not to mention it shows dedication and strength to understanding US history through a certain lense and shows applicants their understanding on motivation of war.
In order to see if these question were considered well throughout, I had ask my peers if these questions should need adjusting. Not only didn’t I receive negative feedback, I was praised for one the questions listed above. The second question dealing with the government branch was considered by DS: “..demonstrates a more in depth knowledge of the entire system rather then one simple fact on who rules the system, and that demonstrates more dedication to learning…” In the Declaration of Independence, the founding father did not use their reasons for leaving great Britain as the final stab. Rather they showed how their argument was valid by changing the rule of order. This being the divine right of kings to the right of men. My auguement for the test is similar, in where a person doesn’t just state reasons, but auguing and challenging the rule within their auguement. This showing for effectiveness compared to the original system and questions as it asked on for trivia. If we were to ask why rather what, then we would understand the attendees as people of augment and if it is sound.
Signers of the Petition RP Dylan Smith K