Stirring Up the Melting Pot

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Jan 1, 2001 | by August Gribbin

The federal government plans big changes in the way aliens become Americans, but a new standardized test lop citizenship bas a lot of people nervous -- both conservatives and liberals.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has begun the significant, far-reaching process of creating the nation's first standardized English and civics test for resident aliens seeking to become U.S. citizens. The agency has allocated money and assembled a staff, aiming at a "pilot test" ready by 2003.

Creating a standardized test to replace the current citizenship-evaluation process is terribly important for would-be citizens. But it affects the fate of the nation, too, and the public should pay attention, say members of the vast immigration establishment. The reasoning is this: The United States is committed to an uninterrupted, unending, high rate of immigration. Currently, a record 26.4 million foreign-born persons live here, and the number is growing by more than a million persons annually.

As the number of new citizens continually increases, their power and their share of responsibility for the nation's future does, too. Thus, the argument goes, if American culture and government are to survive, it is crucial that new citizens know what America stands for and how its unusual government functions.

Although academicians, consultants and lawyers generally agree that a fair, standardized test for citizenship is essential, they also concede that inventing one may be impossible. They predict the effort will backfire on the INS if the test is too tough, too vacuous or otherwise fails to quiz immigrants on topics various groups insist are essential components of citizenship.

"The content of a naturalization test has the potential to be a flash point for political controversy, for a culture war" says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. "Some will want to have 12 percent of the questions on black Americans, and others will want questions on other specific areas of American life."

That aside, those charged with developing a test feel it would help provide an "official" description of the ideals that undergird America. They believe it would help define what it means to be an American, and assist immigrants in assimilating, or becoming "Americanized."

There are those Americans who oppose this notion entirely. As journalist-author John Miller notes, a number of U.S. intellectuals and ethnic-group leaders vehemently oppose Americanization. "Multiculturalists' greatest fear about assimilation is that it will happen," writes Miller in The Unmaking of Americans. "They view Americanization as a kinder, gentler form of ethnic cleansing.... They are intent on using state power to preserve native cultures, native languages and group solidarity." Adds Miller: "Inevitably, creating a naturalization test will create controversy no matter what."

Advocates and opponents of a standardized test agree on one thing, however: The current citizenship evaluation system is flawed. "A national disaster," is the way education consultant George Elford puts it. "The whole process is disrespectful to all concerned" adds political scientist Noah Pickus of Duke University.

The INS is aware of the criticism and is concerned about "anyone being treated unfairly or in a haphazard way" according to one spokesperson. Never theless, the current system, based on a 1952 law, is haphazard by all accounts. Permanent U.S. residents who are at least 18 years old and have lived in the country for five years or more can apply for naturalization (along with certain others). Those who apply receive forms, a naturalization guide to study, an extensive list of documents to supply and directions for paying the $250 processing fee.

The applicants are told they will be summoned for an interview and that they will be asked "to verbally answer a set of civics questions or to take a written multiple-choice test with up to 20 questions." They also are informed that their ability "to read, write, and speak English will be tested." (Applicants need not be fluent, but the law states they must "read, write and speak words in ordinary usage ... simple words and phrases")

In addition, applicants receive a list of 100 sample civics questions developed in 1986, a list that includes queries such as, "In what year was the Constitution written?" (The answer: 1787; see "Civic Sampler" for others.) Applicants also are given a list of sentences they might be asked to listen to and then write, including, "The boy threw a ball" and "The Constitution is the supreme law of our land."

But the "adjudicators" who examine applicants can and do ask any questions they wish and can dictate any sentence that strikes their fancy. Consequently, immigration and ethnic groups have for years protested that an immigrant's ability to pass muster depends on who the adjudicator is, what mood he's in, how many questions he thinks must be answered correctly and whether he's biased against the race or ethnic group the applicant represents. The subjective process often leaves applicants "mystified and frustrated" according to Rosalind Gold of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund.