See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. The Moderate Voice
2. Number 2 Pencil

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On July 27th, 2004 at 2:52 am, Martin aka Blogbat said:

   First and foremost it seems logical they wouldn’t want to naturalize any citizen smarter than the American public schools have produced, so that’s a given.

   Secondly, the first point is probably moot, since in today’s climate, anybody who takes pains to immigrate here legally is by my estimation a dolt. Everyone knows the new fast track leads through Mexico- and I think Feds understand this, thus would be the reason they might be dumbing down the test.

   Never mind the huge influx of illegal aliens is polluting the once proud culture of Americans whose ancestors immigrated legally from Mexico. Now we see trash strewn about everywhere, rampant public drinking and this (which I picked up on my police scanner this evening:

   Pulled over 27. July 2004, 01:15 by Dallas Police for possible DWI-
   Alverado Parez, born 9/11/72… whose Drivers License expired back in 1995! No pride, I tell you. It’s tragic.

   I suspect these new rules changes are probably a closet-grab at another .5% of the voting bloc. I could be wrong, but clearly both candidates are being very stealthy in trying to appeal to this segment. Both know the public is vehemently against illegal immigration or and the over-running of ordinary American neighborhoods, customs and services. As Fox News noted today, that is probably also why we won’t hear the “A-Word” this fall: amnesty.

2. #2
   On July 27th, 2004 at 3:39 am, BC said:

   This is a question from the 100 samples from 1996 in the Washington Post.

   “82. Name one purpose of the United Nations.”

   Now what the #%@# does that have to do with being a U.S. citizen…well unless your one of the @#$Q that believe in a world order.

   And yes i know the United Nations at one time had a purpose (though thats been flushed down the drain), but I would still like to know what that has to do with becoming a U.S. citizen?

3. #3
   On July 27th, 2004 at 3:48 am, TM said:

   Should we ask the question: “In which language do they take this test?”
   Nah, let’s not waste the air.

4. #4
   On July 27th, 2004 at 4:48 am, Martin aka Blogbat said:

   TM: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is most likely the best policy there

5. #5
   On July 27th, 2004 at 7:45 am, Lee said:

   What difference does it make? Does anyone actually apply for citizenship anymore? Isn’t it easier just to sneak in, and not worry about pesky little things like American history and speaking English? (or paying taxes, or obeying our laws, …) </sarcasm>

6. #6
   On July 27th, 2004 at 8:18 am, actus said:

   “The rewriting of the test seems to rest on a false dichotomy between “merely” memorizing facts and understanding basic concepts. It’s hard to do the latter without the former.”

   I disagree. I don’t need to know on what date the constititution was signed or ratified to understand the concept of separation of powers and representative/republican govenment.

7. #7
   On July 27th, 2004 at 8:20 am, actus said:

   “Secondly, the first point is probably moot, since in today’s climate, anybody who takes pains to immigrate here legally is by my estimation a dolt. Everyone knows the new fast track leads through Mexico- and I think Feds understand this, thus would be the reason they might be dumbing down the test.”

   I have to take issue with that. My parents immigrated here with proper visas, and lots of their friends did as well. None would find it any easier to face death in the deserts of the southwest, and they are all the wiser for it.

8. #8
   On July 27th, 2004 at 8:26 am, Blogbat aka Martin said:

   good point, since my grandparents also immigrated (legally), let me take a moment and respond. However, many more illegal aliens prefer to cross at the rio grande, than the cactus santuary. One would suppose anyone crossing the desert this time of year is probably well prepared to look into that dumbed-down test.
   Actus, I agree somewhat, but I think if you want it badly enough, you will remember some basic dates. I think for that reason it should remain as such part of the test- not to mention re-introduced as part of public education.

9. #9
   On July 27th, 2004 at 8:34 am, Blogbat aka Martin said:

   PS Michelle, great write up on the Coulter- USA Today lurch. I think USAT just proved its liberal bias by not getting the “French Party” reference. As I discovered not too long ago, even Kerrys slogen “A Stronger America” was practically stolen from French President Jacques Chirac’s election slogan of a few years past: “Une France Forte”. Talk about “Earth in the Lurch”.

10. #10
    On July 27th, 2004 at 10:33 am, The Liberal Avenger said:

    As somebody who has experienced the Naturalization process through the eyes of a loved one, I can assure you that the test is but one part of one step of a very long, very complicated process.

    The first thing you need to understand is that people aren’t simply walking off the street into the INS offices, waiting in line, taking these tests and becoming Naturalized…

    By the time a FOREIGNER takes the test, he or she has had to qualify for a visa to enter the United States as a permanent resident, immigrant or refugee, has legally entered the United States on that visa, has “qualified” to apply for Naturalization through some means (like having remained legitimately married to their American spouse for X years or HAVING SERVED IN THE US ARMED FORCES) and has been approved as a non-criminal by the FBI several times (in the case of my loved one, 4 times over appx. 15 years via different INS events).

    This isn’t a giveaway… Anyone gaining Naturalization has had to walk an administrative tightrope for years.

    Finally, I can assure all the patriots here that as an American, even a bi-coastally educated, French-speaking Liberal-elite like myself, when you attend a swearing-in ceremony and you see the new citizens and hear where they come from and hear the speech that the judge gives, you will have tears of pride in your eys.

11. #11
    On July 27th, 2004 at 10:36 am, The Liberal Avenger said:

    Je n’aime pas qu’on m’aime, mais j’aime quand meme.

12. #12
    On July 27th, 2004 at 10:39 am, Blogbat aka Martin said:

    Nicely explained, well said, Lib. It indeed is very difficult, but beautiful-and all of it for a reason.

13. #13
    On July 27th, 2004 at 10:42 am, actus said:

    blogbat

    “Actus, I agree somewhat, but I think if you want it badly enough, you will remember some basic dates. ”

    Sure you will. I just don’t think its necessary to remember them in order to get the concepts. And the concepts are more important.

    In my opinion we should test everyone at age 18. Not to take away any rights or anything, just to give them their grade.

14. #14
    On July 27th, 2004 at 10:47 am, The Liberal Avenger said:

    Thank you, Martin. It was indeed a beautiful moment for the appx. thousand Americans and immigrants who were there the day my loved one became an American citizen.

15. #15
    On July 27th, 2004 at 11:11 am, The Liberal Avenger said:

    I should also note, that the concept of “once one of them gets in the door, the rest follow like rats” is simply a myth.

    My loved one has been in the United States legally for close to 20 years and has been a Naturalized citizen for close to 5 of those years. Despite this, my lived one’s family members in their home country (a staunch ally of the United States) have been repeatedly denied even tourist visas to visit. Some of them have university educations, some of them own their own homes and all of them are gainfully employed.

    The specific country of origin is irrelevant here, but while it is an ally of the US, it is also a “third world” (or “3eme monde” for you French-lovers) nation. I realize that the practices for obtaining a tourist visa to this country is more streamlined for people coming from Industrialized Nations.

    This isn’t a complaint, but an observation… It is also an observation not borne exclusively of the experience of my loved one’s family, but also of the families of many foreign-born US Citizen friends.

    In a post 9/11 world where the benign, job-holding family members of American citizens are often not allowed to visit their relatives here, one has to wonder just how legitimate fears of welfare cheats and other ne’er-do-wells coming into our country and causing problems for we god fearing folks is.

16. #16
    On July 27th, 2004 at 11:33 am, Nathan said:

    On the other hand, it isn’t even as rigorous as Michelle Malkin makes it sound, much less the Liberal Avenger. In fact, the most difficult part of the Naturalization Process is getting appointments.
    My Naturalized American wife does have a good grasp of English and does understand American history and democracy…but they didn’t test her at all. The INS offices in San Antonion were so overworked and behind that in her assigned “testing/interview”, they talked to her for less than 3 minutes before approving her application.

    Liberal Avenger is correct that it can be difficult to get into the Naturalization track, but once there, it takes nothing other than inertia to finish it up.

17. #17
    On July 27th, 2004 at 11:39 am, Martin aka Blogbat said:

    That definitely is the problem and I think you touched on it a bit there. We are strict as heck about folks immigrating from allied nations- really even industrialized ones. One example is a friend from Australia who recently began the process of naturalization and has been forced to jump through more hoops than a circus dog, while had he only immigrated to Canada then snuck in, he’d be arguably free and clear after some time. Not that the system is altogether bad, because again, we don’t want ex-cons, dope peddlers and welfare bums joining the roles here, but it is tiresome nonetheless. I suppose the good part is that at the end of the day you at least know how badly you want that, and I’m certainly grateful that all of my grandparents wanted that just as much.

18. #18
    On July 27th, 2004 at 11:52 am, StinKerr said:

    I remember very well going downtown to get the examination for my own naturalization.

    It wasn’t too threatening to me as I had been here since the age of nine and had therefore been in school in the U.S. for nine years.

    I recall learning the Presidents in order and a few other things that I thought they might ask.

    The test was just an oral exam by one of the inspectors.
    1. What was Fulton’s folly?
    2. What was Seward’s folly?
    3. What was 54-40 or fight?
    4. What was “Tippecanoe and Tyler too”?

    After snapping off correct answers on the first three and doing a soft shoe on the fourth (I knew it was an election slogan but I couldn’t remember that W.H.Harrison was the “Hero of Tippecanoe”) the inspector surrendered. I then told him that one of my witnesses was my 7th/8th grade history teacher. He complimented her when she was interviewed.

    Things have apparently changed since 1966 but I think that a demonstration of some knowledge of American history and an understanding of the three main branches of government and how they interact are essential to the prospective citizen. A general awareness of the Constitution should also be demonstrated.

    I think they were somewhat forgiving on the English requirement though. I recall at the swearing in ceremony a man in the row in front of me raised both hands when we were asked to raise our right hand. No, he was not French.

    The only priviledge that citizenship confers is the right to vote. Somehow I think there should be more.

    In addition it seems that people now don’t have to give up their original country’s citizenship and adopt a dual citizenship when they become American citizens (Peter Jennings is one). This is something that should be stopped. You’re either American or you’re not.

    Too many people come here now and don’t want to be Americans, they just want to be here to share in the bounty and opportunity that exists like nowhere else in the world. There’s something wrong in that.

19. #19
    On July 27th, 2004 at 12:11 pm, The Liberal Avenger said:

    Nathan… You’ve been through it, then. Think back to everything you had to do to get your wife to the point she is at today…

    In my case the “loved one” is also my foreign born wife. We married in her country, before she had ever visited the United States. After our marriage we spent several weeks running around the capital city of her third world country getting certification from her country’s police/military that she wasn’t a criminal, getting certification from the FBI that she wasn’t a criminal wanted by the US, that I wasn’t a criminal, that she was who she said she was, that she was born where she said she was, that she was educated where she said she was, her university transcripts & grades, etc. All of the documentation produced by agencies from her nation had to be translated and certified by “official” translation bureaus approved by the US Embassy.

    Next we applied for her visa to come to the US, which consisted of spending a day waiting in line at the embassy to get an appointment to come back several weeks later for a quick interactive application process. Then we waited…

    I had to return to the US and after 5 months she was notified by mail to come to the Embassy in her city to get her visa which had been granted. Afterwards she traveled to the US to join me.

    Over the intervening years there have been misc. summons to INS offices for misc. reasons including additional fingerprinting and FBI checks. (It is my recollection that at least one of these involved the transition from having a visa that allowed her to be here to having a “Green Card.”)

    I believe she qualified for Naturalization after 4 or 6 years being here, however we didn’t move forward with it until her Green Card was due to expire.

    The Naturalization process was rather unwieldy. There was a great deal of “back and forth” over the course of several years, and you’ll forgive me if I cannot remember precisely the machinations involved…

    We had to re-submit all of the translated documentation about her life in her home country, a great deal of information about me and a comprehensive set of information about our children. Our mortgage in both of our names, article of incorporation, house deeds, vehicle registration and tax returns were requested and submitted.

    After another year or so, another fingerprinting for the FBI was ordered and accomlished.

    After yet another year or so, she was summoned for her test which took appx. 20 minutes.

    This was followed perhaps 5 months later by the swearing-in.

    From our perspective, the test administered towards the end of this exhaustive, multi-year process was one of the easier hoops to jump through.

    I believe that once you have spent X years in this country, run a company, owned a home, paid taxes and raised children, 13 silly questions about the Constitution are the least of your worries.

20. #20
    On July 27th, 2004 at 12:15 pm, The Liberal Avenger said:

    “The only priviledge that citizenship confers is the right to vote. Somehow I think there should be more.”

    Social security benefits for spouses of American citizens are different for non-citizens vs. citizens.

    “In addition it seems that people now don’t have to give up their original country’s citizenship and adopt a dual citizenship when they become American citizens.”

    What one has to do is swear in writing that he/she is *willing* to surrender their origin nation’s passport and citizenship.

    Furthermore, one has to swear that they are willing to take up arms in the defense of the United States - and yes, even the “Polish Grandmothers” have to swear to this as well.

21. #21
    On July 27th, 2004 at 12:17 pm, The Liberal Avenger said:

    P.S. Of the 13 questions posed to my wife, the only one she got wrong was “Who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?”

22. #22
    On July 27th, 2004 at 12:38 pm, Liberal Kryptonite said:

    While many - if not most - immigrants decide to naturalize out of love, pride and appreciation of their adopted country, and to enjoy the full benefits of becoming an American citizen, such as voting a number of immigrants naturalize for other reasons:

    a) retaining a wide variety of welfare, disability and other support-type benefits
    b) the ability to fast-track petitions to immigrate extended family.

    It is disturbing to see these “new Americans” who continue to hold tightly their allegiances to their home country. By this I mean voting in foreign elections, maintaining they are solely citizens of their home country for puposes of holding on to land (like in Mexico) holding foreign office, even maintaining that they are still permanent residents and denying that they are US citizens at customs or immigration when entering or departing their beloved home country.

    They enjoy the full benefits of being a citizen, almost reluctantly naturalize, then keep their citizenship under wraps, unless it benefits them somehow, and continue on as if they are a fully vested citizen of their home country with allegiance to that country. Now CIS plans to make it easier - I guess create a standard list of easily memorized questions, and cut the English language requirement to writing a two word sentence rather than 3 words, maybe?

    While the intended result may be the naturalization of Americans who want citizenship fo rthe right reasons, it will also encourage more of those that naturalize for the “wrong” reasons as well.

23. #23
    On July 27th, 2004 at 4:56 pm, Dave Munger said:

    Been wondering if making legal immigration more easy might help curb illegal immigration. I should note a potential conflict of interest: I’ve given up on American women because, no offense, they’re all monsters and whores, and I’m a-courtin’ a Ukranian online.

24. #24
    On July 27th, 2004 at 5:29 pm, JohnM said:

    Liberal Kryptonite,

    I can agree with your observation on (b) but on on (a). As a man married to a non-citizen I can tell you that my spouse would have a better chance of collecting benefits by not becoming a citizen. The reason being that in order to bring her here I had to sign a support agreement.

    To the extent that she is below the poverty line the federal government can come against me for the difference as a fiat accompli for burden of support. All she has to do is go before an administrative law judge, get the order signed and my wages get garnished. As soon as she acquires citizenship that burden falls away.

25. #25
    On July 27th, 2004 at 5:34 pm, JohnM said:

    I think the whole immigration thing is reversed. If someone is a candidate for immigration then should we not administer the citizenship test at a US embassy abroad, in English? If you pass and then qualify for all the other requirements of a visa you get one. Otherwise you stay home.

    Why should we assume the burden of paying the taxes to provide schooling to pass the test? They wish to come here, be prepared before they leave.

    I am not heartless, just practical.

26. #26
    On July 27th, 2004 at 7:06 pm, Nathan said:

    Liberal Avenger,
    My wife was already in the United States on a student visa when I met her. Maybe that makes a difference…although I’ve asked her what she went through to get it, and she said it wasn’t very difficult at all, the Naturalization process was more frustrating by far. And I stand by what I said: the hardest thing was just getting an appointment, and the time waiting for them to process paperwork. But the standards were insanely low. She was never challenged at any part of the process. If you just file the paperwork on time, you get it. It was far more difficult to apply for college.

27. #27
    On July 28th, 2004 at 12:50 am, KB said:

    John M - that primarily refers to state and some federal benefits that are time limited. The affidavit of support is a joke and virtually unenforceable. I haven’t heard of anyone ever getting the affidavit of support enforced - in fact, a lawsuit was recently filed in California to force the state to start going after sponsors who signed the affidavit, and the state is actually against this. But I totally applaud you doing things the right way - so few do since the system makes it easier to just take advantage.