INS Agent, giving Apu the citizenship test: "What caused the Civil War?"

Apu: "Well, the Civil War was caused by many factors, geographical, economic, industrial..."

INS Agent: "Just say 'slavery.'"

Apu: "Slavery it is, sir!"

Proctor: What's the most important right of citizenship?

Me: Well, I want to say the right to vote, but with only about a third of eligible citizens voting in the last election, it's hard to characterize...

Proctor: Just say, "The right to vote."

Me: The right to vote.

Most of these complaints are simple quibbling, like the president has to be born in the US. This is not a test for entrance to the bar, it is a citizenship test, and it would be ludicrous to demand all the fine details.

As far as the right to keep and bear arms, you are dead wrong. If the right were a collective right, the second amendment would be the only amendment so worded, or you would have to apply it to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. It has NOT been so confirmed by the Supreme Court. And if you look at the founding fathers' writings, the various versions in state constitutions, and alternative versions of the amendment itself, it is quite clear that the purpose of arms is for both self-defense (the Supreme Court HAS ruled that the government has no duty to protect citizens; the police are basically to bring bad guys to justice, not to keep them from doing bad) and to keep the government honest.

It is certainly arguable that keeping the government honest is a joke, especially since Wavo and Ruby Ridge showed how little interest citizens have in a show of private force. But the second amendment is still the law of the land, and the right applies to individuals, not groups.

Most of these complaints are simple quibbling, like the president has to be born in the US. This is not a test for entrance to the bar, it is a citizenship test, and it would be ludicrous to demand all the fine details.

The trouble is - and I say this as a permanent resident who's applying for citizenship and fully expect to be taking such a test in the coming year - that there seems to be a situation where the proctor giving the test could indeed "fail" an applicant for, not missing the fine details, but providing them.

Either that, or you have proctors on citizenship tests allowed to use their own judgement as to who can pass, rather than going off of the official "answer" key.

Now, speaking as myself, I would rather have the former since I fully intend to be pretty damn informed about the test, the government, and other issues. I'm also "lucky" in that I look and sound like a "regular Joe," at least compared to some applicants. However, as a prospective citizen, the prospect that the same answers given by the same people could result in offering or denying of citizenship based on the biases of the proctor disturbs me greatly.

What's the answer? I don't really know, and I haven't yet gone through the process so all I can do is wonder about it. Still, this shouldn't be lightly dismissed.

As a naturalized citizen who passed the test some years ago, it was always clear to me that the test was never intended to be a test of knowledge. The purpose is just to go through a ritual recital of expected answers that shows that you know how to conform with the expectations of government officials. Hence, when we prospective immigrants are asked questions like like "are you a Communist?" or "have you ever engaged in prostitution?", we do not have to think deeply to get the right answer.

Some suggested replacement questions:

1. All men were created equal. By whom?

2. How many thousand years ago?

3. Where can you go for free health care? (A. Prison).

4. Do you know where bin Laden is hiding?

5. Does the country you come from have weapons of mass destruction? Draw a map if necessary.

5. In which country do you have to be born to take this test seriously?

6. Why are you laughing?

Most Americans couldn't point out Iraq on a map. The head of our Senate Intelligence Oversight committee doesn't know what the Hezbollah is. No one seems to know anything about the constitution. We graduate from high schools people that can not read nor write.

Who here has the audacity to give anyone a test to get entrance into this country?

Felix is right, this article is mostly just polically slanted quibling. Perhaps the good prof plagerized a student paper. Written by a savvy student knowing the prof's "A" buttons. This is a "C" paper at best. I doubt Salon actually paid for it. Sadly, this seems to be the direction that Salon is going. A vanity press outlet for lefty liberals.

Now it's time for the choir to chime in supporting their expert and expressing shock anyone would challenge such gravitas. How tiring. By now we should all realize that agreeable experts are a commodity.

This guy just bumped his bibliography and scored some street cred at the same time. For that, he actually is smart.

Sure, a couple of the author's complaints were a little nitpicky --- like the thing about religion, and the right to bear arms question. But some of these are pretty damn bad -- the president has to have been born in the US? Yeah, we know what they mean, but on a test like this you shouldn't be penalized for giving the correct answer.

Questions 89 and 95 both claim that one of the colonists’ major grievances against Great Britain was that “The British army stayed in their houses (boarding, quartering).” This is pure revolutionary propaganda. Neither the Quartering Act of 1764 nor its renewal of 1774 (one of the four “Coercive” or five “Intolerable” Acts) had anything to do with quartering troops in private people’s homes. Rather, these acts allowed the army to rent unused buildings, such as empty barns, for the purpose of housing troops. The only constitutional issue was whether the Parliament could then require the colonial legislature to pay for the rent on the building, plus the soldiers’ food, since this seemed like another case of taxation without representation.