# Citizenship Test in the USA



## VenusEnvy

Hello everyone! 

I've been thinking a lot about the USA and those who want to come here and become citizens. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to do so. Last night, my boyfriend's mother (who is from Peru) was studying for the test by reading an article on American values. Then, I found this article online:

Focus on Citizenship Test to Shift

_It basically says that the test will become much more involved. Instead of just knowing American government and history, people will have to know American ideals and random tid-bits such as the minimum wage limit. _

My questions: 

Who has taken the citizenship test? Was it difficult? Were you tested on American ideals?

What do you think about the citizenship test changing? Do you think it is a step in the right direction? Or, that it is just making it harder for people to become citizens?


----------



## maxiogee

I always find it strange that countries have 'tests' for prospective citizens when any idiot can become one by being born there. 

What is the fine distinction between being a thicko who knows nothing of one's native country's laws/heritage/culture and being a failed applicant for citizenship - except that one has actively sought citizenship, and the other has acquired it genetically?


----------



## natasha2000

As far as I know, Spain does not have such test. It's a purely burocratic process. On the other hand, I do agree with Maxiogee. Why should a Mexican or an Indian be obliged to know about Gettisburg if a half of born Americans don't know anything about it?


----------



## Fernando

Because US can not get rid of the born-in-the-USA idiots, but they try not to accept the new ones.

I consider fair to pass a simple test in order to become a citizen of one country. I have seen some examples of questions and I could have passed the exam. The test focus on your new rights (minimum wage) and freedoms (press, etc.) with notions of History of US very very difficult, such as "Which was the first US president?".


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:


> with notions of History of US very very difficult, such as "Which was the first US president?".


I am sure there are a lot of them Americans who don't know this,  as well as I met many Spanish people who don't know who were Los Reyes Católicos, for example. 

I don't think any test of knowledge is a good idea for receiving newcomers, no matter its grade of difficulty. Maybe a language test would be fair. But history? Or the minimum wage limit? Please...


----------



## karuna

Some time ago I looked at the Latvian citizenship test and although it seemed quite easy I woudn't be able to answer half of questions correctly. These were technical questions like in which year that or this happened, or in which cases the president has a right to disolve the parliament. I don't know if it makes me a native born idiot but I never paid attention to these details.


----------



## Fernando

natasha2000 said:


> I am sure there are a lot of them Americans who don't know this,  as well as I met many Spanish people who don't know who were Los Reyes Católicos, for example.


 
Unluckily our Constitution does not provide any way to take the nationality from that people.



natasha2000 said:


> I don't think any test of knowledge is a good idea for receiving newcomers, no matter its grade of difficulty. Maybe a language test would be fair. But history? Or the minimum wage limit? Please...



Newcomers would not possibly pass the language test, while they would probably should know they have right to a minimum wage.


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:


> Unluckily our Constitution does not provide any way to take the nationality from that people.


This was not my point. It is ridiculous. Nobody should be prived from their right only because he is ignorant. If we took away the citizenship from all who don't pass this kind of exam, I think that it is fair to esteem that the citizenship woudl be witdrawn from almost 70% of all world population. 



> Newcomers would not possibly pass the language test, while they would probably should know they have right to a minimum wage


Language test would not be the kind of thest that is taken at the Faculty of Phylology, of course. But I see more logic to demand a certain grade of knowledge of the language than history. The point is that it is in the wne country's interest that the newcomer is as independent as possible, and knowing a language will help him far more in this than knowing the history...
As far as knowing the minimum wage... I don't see the point in asking him this question. He will know that for sure, if it is of his interest. If not, he wouldn't. Anyway, even if he knew, what's good of it? With the Spanish minimum wage, it is impossible to come to the end of the month, so, why bother? Everyone would try to look for better paid job, at least better than minimum wage. IMHO, I really don't see the point in asking a newcomer those questions apart from to make him the things more dfficult. (Pa joder, así de claro).


----------



## Fernando

natasha2000 said:


> If we took away the citizenship from all who don't pass this kind of exam, I think that it is fair to esteem that the citizenship woudl be witdrawn from almost 70% of all world population.


 
But what a wonderful country would leave! 



natasha2000 said:


> But I see more logic to demand a certain grade of knowledge of the language than history.



Again, I doubt whether many of inmigrants would pass it. 



natasha2000 said:


> With the Spanish minimum wage, it is impossible to come to the end of the month, so, why bother?
> 
> Because some foreigners are so meanly treated that they do not take even the minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> natasha2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone would try to look for better paid job, at least better than minimum wage. IMHO, I really don't see the point in asking a newcomer those questions apart from to make him the things more dfficult. (Pa joder, así de claro).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He would be more f***d with the language test.
> 
> The citizenship grants you some rights (vote, for example). I see most useful for a newcomer to make a good decision to know that there is a Constitution, a Parliament, a king (Spain), a system of rights, laws and so on.
> 
> A US-born guy is suppossed to know all this if he has not been living in a cave since his birth.
> 
> A non-US born is not.
Click to expand...


----------



## natasha2000

I must admit that basically, I agree on everything you said, Fernando. The thing is, that if there must be some exam, I think more useful would be the language exam. It should be an exam of beginners level, for example. But on the whole, I think there shouldn't be any kind of an exam whatsoever.

You mustn't forget that a citizenship is very hard to achieve, not only in the US, but also in other places. I, for instance, have to wait for 10 years before having the right to apply for the citizenship in Spain. In those 10 years, I suppose that I would get a pretty good picture of the political situation in Spain, so I can use my right to vote wisely when the time comes...


----------



## elroy

natasha2000 said:


> I am sure there are a lot of them Americans who don't know this,


 You can't be wronger, and the smiley doesn't help diminish the absurdity of your entirely unfounded assumption. 

Americans are not nearly as ignorant as many Europeans would make them out to be.  While I don't doubt that there may be a minuscule minority of Americans who don't know who the first President was, asserting that "a lot of them don't" is so gross an exaggeration I can't even begin to take it seriously.


----------



## djchak

Unless you really have been living in a cave, everyone knows who George  Washington is.

Expecting people to know about the entire structure and history of the US government is absolutely absurd, and I hope no one would expect that from anyone.

We should expect potential citizens of any country to know the basics before being naturalized, and expect them to learn the common major language, or languages. If not, then they should still be able to stay on as resident aliens (or something similar), provided they follow the laws of that country.


----------



## maxiogee

djchak said:


> Unless you really have been living in a cave, everyone knows who George  Washington is.



That wasn't the question 

Would anyone who answered "John Hanson" fail?


----------



## djchak

Technically.

Damn you, I was trying to google pre president before, to make that point. I read about that in Readers Digest years ago...obviously I couldn't find it. You won, you beat me to it. 

It was relevant to the question, as someone mentioned caves. Later.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> That wasn't the question
> 
> Would anyone who answered "John Hanson" fail?


I would guess that just as many Aussies would not know the name of the first Prime Minister of Australia and that was only just over 100 years ago.

Many native citizens would fail citizenship tests.

.,,


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Would memorizing lots of possibly useless notions make foreign folks good US citizens? I don't think so.
Would that prevent potentially dangerous people from becoming US citizens? I don't think so.
So what's the point of this text?


----------



## .   1

Australia once had a 'White Australia Policy' which required all potential immigrants to pass an English test.  This test was written in such a way that the examiner could select texts for interpretation.
If the immigrant had skills that were required but poor English then that person was given some common text that is easy to read.
If the potential immigrant was not wanted then they would be asked to read some obscure dense tract that is virtually unintelligible.

In my opinion these tests are merely a way of maintaining the appearance of fairness but retaining the power of veto.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

For those who would like to read the new test, in addition to commenting on it, here is an overview: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...,1,5333633.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

and the test itself: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...oll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&?track=sto-relcon


----------



## natasha2000

. said:


> Australia once had a 'White Australia Policy' which required all potential immigrants to pass an English test. This test was written in such a way that the examiner could select texts for interpretation.
> If the immigrant had skills that were required but poor English then that person was given some common text that is easy to read.
> If the potential immigrant was not wanted then they would be asked to read some obscure dense tract that is virtually unintelligible.
> 
> In my opinion these tests are merely a way of maintaining the appearance of fairness but retaining the power of veto.
> 
> .,,


 
But Dots! It's cheating! Why I am not surprised? 
I sign every word you wrote.


----------



## djchak

Paulfromitaly said:


> Would memorizing lots of possibly useless notions make foreign folks good US citizens? I don't think so.
> Would that prevent potentially dangerous people from becoming US citizens? I don't think so.
> So what's the point of this text?




To make it harder! 

I do think that this is just another way to "weed out" people who aren't going to do things "our way", whatever that is. There isn't any serious security effort behind it. It's just to make it harder to get into the US.


----------



## cuchuflete

djchak said:


> It's just to make it harder to get into the US.



Ehmmmm!   This has nothing to do with getting into the US.
It is not an immigration procedure.


----------



## natasha2000

djchak said:


> To make it harder!
> 
> I do think that this is just another way to "weed out" people who aren't going to do things "our way", whatever that is. There isn't any serious security effort behind it. It's just to make it harder to get into the US.


 
ejem.... I really don't see the point. So, if someone passes this test, that is a sure sign he is not a terrorist, or any other kind of a person that could be "persona non grata" not only in the US but also in many other countries?
Bad people are even more dangerous if they are clever. And this test serves to see how clever one is, and not if he is only a person looking for better life or a a criminal that can bring only problems to a new country.
I hope I made myself clear enough.


----------



## ireney

Well it's not _that_ difficult is it? I mean I cannot say I am well versed in the US constitution, history, form of government etc but I still got an average of 8 out of 10 (and I did miss a few "name" ones (i.e. Attorney General, "my U.S. Representative" , my State's capital ). 

So what's the fuss? I don't live in the US, I haven't studied about the US and of course, I haven't studied for the test. Now if there were a lot of  questions about the Common Law I would probably had a much worse average but I see that the questions stay clear from complicated matters 

Admittedly I can be considered one of the privileged ones since I am educated in general, I have time to browse through the internet and learn tidbits about the US from reading articles and whatnot etc.  But I'd say that not having lived in the US and not having studied about the test sort of cancels out my "privileged" status.


----------



## djchak

cuchuflete said:


> Ehmmmm!   This has nothing to do with getting into the US.
> It is not an immigration procedure.



While I can see your point (that people will still be allowed to immigrate in as NR and H1Bs and such), it will have an effect on applying for citizenship, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it.

Oh, and I assume the original poster meant to link this article?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...,3228789.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines


----------



## TrentinaNE

Paulfromitaly said:


> Would memorizing lots of possibly useless notions make foreign folks good US citizens? I don't think so.
> Would that prevent potentially dangerous people from becoming US citizens? I don't think so.
> So what's the point of this text?


Do the rules here at WRF succeed in preventing every person from posting annoying, ill-written messages?  (Not yours, Paul, but you know what I mean.)

U.S. citizens have the right to vote, and in order to exercise that privilege, I don't think it's unreasonable to require new citizens to learn something about how U.S. government is structured, and the basic principles that inform our national history. Those who are born and raised here typically study this material at various points throughout their schooling. Does it guaranteet that all of them will be good citizens? Of course not, but at least an effort has been made. 

Elisabetta, naturalized U.S. citizen


----------



## roxcyn

Well, I must say that there are many places that offer free classes for the US citizenship exam, so if they are changing and/or adding more to the exam I don't see it as unreasonable.  As Elisabetta was describing, the school children are taking 13 years of school (K-12) and are tested on various material.


----------



## natasha2000

ireney said:


> Admittedly I can be considered one of the privileged ones since I am educated in general, I have time to browse through the internet and learn tidbits about the US from reading articles and whatnot etc. But I'd say that not having lived in the US and not having studied about the test sort of cancels out my "privileged" status.


This is the point, Ireney. You ARE or youer WOULD  BE in privileged situation if you immigrated to the US. The thing is that many of people who immigrate are very modest, but honest people who just seek better life.  Many of them spent 16 hours working very hard, so, why make them life more miserable than it already is? I am not worried about immigrants of your or my level of education, but I think it is unfair to the people who were less lucky than us.


----------



## micafe

VenusEnvy said:


> My questions:
> 
> Who has taken the citizenship test? Was it difficult? Were you tested on American ideals?
> 
> What do you think about the citizenship test changing? Do you think it is a step in the right direction? Or, that it is just making it harder for people to become citizens?


 
Hi Venus,

I didn't read all the posts but it seems to me no one has answered your questions.

I did take the citizenship test a little over 5 months ago, in June that is. It's actually only a very small part of the interview. 

No, it was not difficult at all. I studied for it using the questions I found on the Internet. I was asked only 6 questions, randomly chosen by the person who interviewed me. None of them was difficult. I don't remember them now but I got them all right. 

I wasn't asked anything about American ideals. 

He did ask me if I was willing to fight for the United States in case of a war, if they ever needed me was I prepared to help in anyway, even in the military. I said yes to all of them.

They like it when you speak good English. They give you a very short English test and they make you pronounce and write sentences. Of course the interview is in English, so by that time, the person already knows wheather you speak the language or not. 

What do I think about the citizenship test changing? Well.. I do think it's more important to agree with the ideals of the country you want to become a citizen of, than to know how many representatives there are in Congress, or what the name of the Speaker of the House is today. It's already changed from the time I took the test


----------



## vince

Gaining citizenship in Canada is incredibly easy. You only need to be a permanent resident for THREE years and they ask really stupid questions. I know someone who got coaching for the test and she's now a citizen---amazing (and disturbing) fact is that she can't even hold a basic conversation in English.


----------



## DCPaco

I took the test when I became a U.S. citizen (even if I should've had birthright, but it was too late when I realized that my dad wasn't naturalized [my Dad was born in Mexico but his mother was born in Texas, so he got birthright through her as I should've through him]).

The important thing to remember is that the test starts as soon as you enter that door (to the interview room). They ask you all sorts of simple questions. But there is a list of 100 questions of things you should know to pass the test. The ones that are generally most challenging, that require some research if you don't keep up with politics, are those that require you to know who your local government officials are. You should know every bit of that and understand how it functions (for your own sake--at least). There were also a few of the historical types of questions and then some small talk. 

These tests, however, are not necessarily objective. The amount of questions or the content of the interview is entirely at the discretion of the interviewer.

The reason why I say that the interview starts the moment you enter the room is because some people have failed the test expecting that the administrator was going to indicate at what point the test was going to begin, when it had already begun and rather than engaging English immediately, they responded in Spanish (because Hispanic U.S. officials are not unusual in South Texas).

These are the 100 that my mother and I studied:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm


----------



## DCPaco

Oh, I forgot to answer the second question.

I think these are good questions and I think if you are going to be a citizen somewhere you should know the history and its values. 

As a side note, after studying for that test, I am confident to say that I know more about this country than many (if not most) people of the United Sates. I think the questions that you study for help prepare you to be an active citizen of this country...they are an introduction.

Now, there is a questionaire that is handed to you at the interview (aside from the 100)...ALL of these are to be answered NO. They are fishing for any indication of communist mentality. And, something to remember: Naturalization is revocable.


----------



## ireney

Ok let's see what these questions is about. I would say that they fall in two (large) categories : One is history the other is how the country "works" (all of the 3 branches plus a few more).

Now I don't think anyone will consider it wrong for a person that wants to become an American to be asked if he knows how things work, the basics about the goverment he will have the right to vote for, the judiciary system for which he will both vote and be judged from, his representatives he is going to vote for. Plus of course the Constitution and I don't think I need to say anything about that. 

Now let's take the history. It's not as if (as I see it) the questions require of anyone to know lots and lots of history. Call me crazy but I think that if you really want to become the citizen of a country you have to know some stuff about its history. It often helps understand where it comes from, some of today's pluses (?) and minuses of that country so to speak, its problems and its strenghts.


Now we are talking about 100 questions. They are "set". You can study them at your own time. In fact quite a few are more or less similar. What are we celebrating at the 4th of July and What is  Indipendence's Day (my wording) answer each other.

Others one person living in the US has no problem knowing (President, Vice President, State's capital etc).

Some others are really easy to learn even if you didn't know before and very easy to remember (how many States? What do the stars on the flag represent? Who was the first President?).

The number of questions hard to learn and or to remember is really low. I believe that the number of these last that a person shouldn't know are extremely low if non-existent. 

Not only for the US mind you; for any country.

What I don't know is how the officials handle the questions and such. Are they objective? If not I am sure there will be complaints out there. If not, the whole process is fine by me. If yes, then the questions are fine, the process is not.

In addition to everything I've said before, I want to add that I take it as a given that a person that for one reason or another chose to live in another country and become its citizen is interested in learning a few things about his adopted country. In fact, even before thinking of becoming a citizen I take it as a given that he wants to know how the country that he lives in "operates" and "thinks" so that he can "operate" within this new country.

P.S. I don't think any of the questions measure intelligence by the way.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

vince said:


> Gaining citizenship in Canada is incredibly easy. You only need to be a permanent resident for THREE years and they ask really stupid questions. I know someone who got coaching for the test and she's now a citizen---amazing (and disturbing) fact is that she can't even hold a basic conversation in English.




The citizenship *test *is easy.  Gaining citizenship is not.  Permanent residency is one of many, many hurdles that most immigrants face.


----------



## Outsider

The fact that the test is in English is a hurdle in itself.


----------

