Citizenship idea
Dec. 26th, 2003 11:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasMy father-in-law has mentioned that the questions he had to answer in 1950 when he took his citizenship test were a lot more difficult that the ones in the 1990 version.
I've always thought that it would be an interesting idea to make it so that the ONLY way you could get citizenship was through naturalization. No automatic citizenship because your parents are citizens, or because you're born in the country.
Some time after your eighteenth birthday, you'd have to take a citizenship test in order to become a citizen. If you passed, you'd have to take a citizenship oath or affirmation. Everybody would. (As it is now, I think you can become a citizen before your eighteenth birthday, but I'd like to restrict it so that everyone would have to be eighteen before taking the oath -- I don't think it's fair to expect most little kids to understand an oath.)
You could have citizenship classes in the high schools; you could have big proctored citizenship tests in the schools, like we do the SATs. But I'd probably make the citizenship classes OPTIONAL, and passing the citizenship test would NOT be a requrement for graduation.
You'd have to register for the Selective Service whether you were a citizen or a resident -- that wouldn't change. (Whether having a draft at all is a good idea, or even constitutional, is a different argument.) You'd have to pay the same taxes either way, you'd have the same rights to a lawyer, jury trial, due process, and so forth, whether you were a citizen or not. But you'd only be able to vote, serve on a jury, or serve in elected office, if you were a citizen.
I'd probably make it illegal to discriminate against anybody in hiring or housing or so forth on basis of citizenship. And I'd make it harder to get out of jury duty for any reason except medical hardship. So there would be a cost to being a citizen: you'd have a chance of having to serve on a jury, which would mean that there would be a reason to NOT become a citizen.
If you failed the citizenship test when you were eighteen, or just didn't bother with it, you could take the classes and the test and the oath or affirmation at any time later.
I'd make the citizenship test be reasonably comprehensive -- not incredibly difficult or anything, but you'd have to know something about the way the judicial system works, presumption of innocence, what juries are and why they are, and so forth. You'd probably have to get like an 80% or something to pass -- you could miss a couple questions and still get it.
Anyway, if my father-in-law happens to read this, I'd be really interested if you remember any of the citizenship questions you had to answer. . .
I've always thought that it would be an interesting idea to make it so that the ONLY way you could get citizenship was through naturalization. No automatic citizenship because your parents are citizens, or because you're born in the country.
Some time after your eighteenth birthday, you'd have to take a citizenship test in order to become a citizen. If you passed, you'd have to take a citizenship oath or affirmation. Everybody would. (As it is now, I think you can become a citizen before your eighteenth birthday, but I'd like to restrict it so that everyone would have to be eighteen before taking the oath -- I don't think it's fair to expect most little kids to understand an oath.)
You could have citizenship classes in the high schools; you could have big proctored citizenship tests in the schools, like we do the SATs. But I'd probably make the citizenship classes OPTIONAL, and passing the citizenship test would NOT be a requrement for graduation.
You'd have to register for the Selective Service whether you were a citizen or a resident -- that wouldn't change. (Whether having a draft at all is a good idea, or even constitutional, is a different argument.) You'd have to pay the same taxes either way, you'd have the same rights to a lawyer, jury trial, due process, and so forth, whether you were a citizen or not. But you'd only be able to vote, serve on a jury, or serve in elected office, if you were a citizen.
I'd probably make it illegal to discriminate against anybody in hiring or housing or so forth on basis of citizenship. And I'd make it harder to get out of jury duty for any reason except medical hardship. So there would be a cost to being a citizen: you'd have a chance of having to serve on a jury, which would mean that there would be a reason to NOT become a citizen.
If you failed the citizenship test when you were eighteen, or just didn't bother with it, you could take the classes and the test and the oath or affirmation at any time later.
I'd make the citizenship test be reasonably comprehensive -- not incredibly difficult or anything, but you'd have to know something about the way the judicial system works, presumption of innocence, what juries are and why they are, and so forth. You'd probably have to get like an 80% or something to pass -- you could miss a couple questions and still get it.
Anyway, if my father-in-law happens to read this, I'd be really interested if you remember any of the citizenship questions you had to answer. . .
(no subject)
Date: 2003-12-26 05:10 pm (UTC)