Immigration

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has revamped the… Immigration

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has revamped the naturalization test. According to an Associated Press report, immigrants applying for citizenship will face a more abstract test with an emphasis on the fundamental concepts of American democracy.

Andrew: The idea to revamp the citizenship test is a strong one – especially when the latest study comes out that says a disturbing percentage of American citizens at birth couldn’t pass the exam. And it’s a good thing to move away from questions that, frankly, are just minutiae in the grand scale of things, like asking what number a certain amendment was.

But still, the test isn’t an accurate pedagogical measurement, and it’s probably not the optimal indicator of someone’s readiness and willingness to become a citizen. For starters, the test has just 10 questions and six correct answers are required to pass. And those questions are getting more abstract. So instead of memorizing facts, potential citizens will be memorizing the exact phrasing that’s acceptable on the test.

The concept behind the overhauled test is to focus less on trivia and more on American values and beliefs. But there is no unifying set of values that makes one an American, so it’s easy to call this a fruitless endeavor. The citizenship test, above all, is an issue without an ultimate solution. So I guess however badly they do it, at least it’s them instead of me.

Molly: The revised test might seem to mean well, but at its basic core, it is another attempt by politicos to slow down or altogether halt the immigration process. The test calls for questions that supposedly better represent what American democracy is about. Based on the underlying implications of this test, however, I would say America is about being an increasingly nativist, anti-immigration nation. I wonder if these new questions will cover things like the Chinese Exclusion Act or the Immigration Act of 1924 – relics of our nation’s dirty, anti-immigration past. Most likely not.

The fact is, this new test has the same aims as this preceding legislation, but it is dressed up to look like a pro-America – rather than anti-immigration – change for the better. It all sounds so very nice and patriotic, but I question how many actual Americans, who have lived in this country for their entire lives, know how many amendments there are in the U.S. Constitution – one of the questions on the new test. And what I find most hypocritical of all is that if these immigrants truly studied what the United States is about, they would learn that it was founded as a place welcome to anyone who hoped to pursue a new life. Unfortunately, this can’t be said about our country anymore.

Politics

It looks like detainees won’t be getting their day in court any time soon. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Senate defeated the most recent attempt to restore the writ of habeas corpus – a move that would have allowed terrorism suspects to try their case in a U.S. Federal Court.

Andrew: The detainee rights bill was bipartisan, and as the Houston Chronicle put it, would have given detainees a right “rooted in English common law dating from before the Magna Carta of 1215.” This crucial component of any free country’s judicial process should not be suspended, truncated or abbreviated because of current concerns. In general, I’m wary of any impulsive political action that lacks a perspective on the past and future, and this seems like one of those hasty decisions, especially when vague accusations of national security are thrown out there.

When national security is used as a blanket defense, it should not prevent any bill from being passed – instead, it should be a problem that lawmakers try to solve, with the challenge being on them to incorporate appropriate provisions to balance safety and rights. If Congress is supposed to be comprised of the best and brightest, they should be able to figure this out.

Molly: It was a valiant effort on behalf of Arlen Specter and the Senate democrats, but I’m not surprised that this bill was defeated. The threat of terrorists has been so over hyped to the point that the government is legally violating the right to privacy of American citizens. Why, then, would the same policymakers who so eagerly jumped on board with the PATRIOT Act give any kind of rights whatsoever to detainees? I guess the idea of innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply outside U.S. borders.

According to the Post-Gazette, those who opposed the bill claim that the suspected terrorists would use their right to a trial as a means to flood the courts with petitions and appeals. Apparently, some people will do just about anything to free themselves of terrorism charges. Luckily, our friends in Congress have removed these options. Instead, let’s try them in a secret military tribunal. That way, if the persecutors – I mean prosecutors, need to stomp on a few more human rights, no one will ever know.

Entertainment

Nickelodeon sponsored its fourth annual “Worldwide Day of Play” Saturday. To encourage kids to get out of the house, the cable network and its affiliates blacked out all programming for three hours, according to CNN. The Alliance for a Healthier Generation and Nickelodeon also organized and granted money for events promoting exercise and good health as the culminating event of the Alliance’s Go Healthy Month.

Andrew: Encouraging kids to get fit is never a bad thing, so it’s hard to argue against this program, especially with child obesity always being the public health elephant in the room. The programming and funding should be praised – participation and fun is how kids get more active, not preaching and lectures from adults – but the decision to black out all shows is more symbolic than functional. If kids are sitting and watching television, they’ll just find a different channel.

The newsworthiness of this event lies in the contradiction of blacking out programming – it’s assumed the network will lose potential revenue from ad sales. But if Nickelodeon really wanted to take a stand, they could air their shows normally and forgo all the revenue that comes from sugary cereals, candy, fast food or anything else that makes a habit of tempting kids with deceptive advertising. It would be a more effective and long-term plan, but if three hours can get publicity, why sacrifice revenue and do any more?

Molly: Congratulations Nickelodeon, you care about children – or at least look like you care about children. Either way, Nick’s “Day of Play” sent the message to kids, and hopefully parents as well, that being active is both important and fun. Though one has to wonder how many kids didn’t just click their remote and switch to the Disney Channel or Cartoon Network, the stance of the network on too much couch time is a step in the right direction.

This blackout might have been more effective if Nickelodeon had done more promotion and advertising toward the parents, because in the end, this is where the problem lies. If parents are content to allow their children to sit in front of a screen all day, children will sit in front of a screen all day – no matter how many blackouts Nickelodeon has.