Unfortunately, I have had several occasions to comment on Washington Post articles by reporter Darryl Fears. He has another one today in the same vein, “Citizenship Changes Draw Objections,” about some proposals allegedly being considered that would raise some fees and “toughen the required English and history exams,” making it more difficult for legal immigrants to become citizens.
Since these proposals are preliminary and were obviously leaked, it’s not clear how serious any of them are. In fact, this article strikes me a pretty clear example of “advocacy news,” an attempt by the media–interest group alliance to head off a reform they don’t like. Thus only groups with “objections” are quoted.
Are there no interest groups, or other observers, who think — or would think, if asked by a reporter who was actually reporting — that these proposals sound like a good idea?
Read the article to see some selected examples of some of the proposals that are said to be under consideration, but this one is my favorite: according to a spokesman for the Citizenship and Immigration Services office, one of the questions on the citizenship exam, “What are the colors of the flag?” might be replaced with one like “What is one of the fundamental principles protected by the Constitution?”
Perhaps that example explains why Fears and the “immigration rights advocates” he quotes oppose these proposals. What would they have the citizenship examiners do with an applicant who, citing the Fourteenth Amendment and various civil rights laws, answered that a fundamental principle protected by the Constitution is that every American has the right to be treated without regard to his race or ethnicity?
Something to note: I recall from a citizenship-seeking friend (a fellow overeducated type) that the U.S. citizenship test given differs according to the educational background of the applicant. I suspect college educated types are not asked things such as the colors of the flag.