US will ‘overhaul’ the citizenship test

[BCP1928]

Both

https://www.wfla.com/news/national/gen-z-has-lowest-patriotic-sentiment-in-us-poll-shows

Desire to Move Out of The Country Has Tripled Since 1974 | Polling Institute

Cooking and travel are much more popular pastimes than 50 years ago

www.monmouth.edu

Yes, Gen Z is rejecting the toxic myth of American Exceptionalism. They may turn out be the true patriots after all.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Yes, Gen Z is rejecting the toxic myth of American Exceptionalism. They may turn out be the true patriots after all.

Yes, if they can stay off social media long enough.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Yes, Gen Z is rejecting the toxic myth of American Exceptionalism. They may turn out be the true patriots after all.

You use the term 'patriot,' but I dont think you understand what it means.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Will they declare the US is a Christian nation and deny people based on their support for religious freedom for others? Will they decide your support for your trans cousin overseas is considered “moral turpitude”? Will donating money to Gaza end with you unable to naturalize in the US? Had to have an abortion because of a medical emergency, will you even be able to get a green card much less citizenship?

Currently, Secretary Rubio says he is denying (and possibly revoking) visas to people who allegedly 'celebrated' Charlie Kirk's murder. As you say, what constitutes 'celebration' may be in the eye of a beholder at the State Department.

 

[BCP1928]

You use the term 'patriot,' but I dont think you understand what it means.

What do you think it means? Are you not confounding it with Nationalism?

 

[Pommer]

Pedantic statement ahead: She was born in Somalia and became a naturalized US citizen. That means she's already passed the test. Just a clarification: saying she's already a citizen could imply she's a US citizen by birth.

Point.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I doubt if Ilhan Omar could pass it.

I know our president couldn’t, which is far more concerning.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They may turn out be the true patriots after all.

not if half of them say they want to move somewhere else.

Per the article I posted:
There are significant age differences in wanting to move out of the country. Currently, half (51%) of those under the age of 35 want to resettle


Nothing says "I love this country and want to change it for the better" like packing up and heading to Canada or Ireland because they didn't get their way on everything.

"Win some, lose some" IS part of this country's governance, and slow moving change is baked into the country's foundations.

The U.S. was deliberately structured to make political change slow, cautious, and incremental.


If they dislike that aspect of the country so much that half of them say they want to bail, and only 16% have a sense of national pride, then no, Gen-Z is not a particularly patriotic generation.

 

[durangodawood]

....."Win some, lose some" IS part of this country's governance, and slow moving change is baked into the country's foundations.

The U.S. was deliberately structured to make political change slow, cautious, and incremental......

That is pretty quaint. Fast changes are afoot, and many bode ill for the future of the USA as a republic.

 

[BCP1928]

not if half of them say they want to move somewhere else.

Per the article I posted:
There are significant age differences in wanting to move out of the country. Currently, half (51%) of those under the age of 35 want to resettle


Nothing says "I love this country and want to change it for the better" like packing up and heading to Canada or Ireland because they didn't get their way on everything.

Many refugees continue to love their home country--in fact, they are criticized for it by the present administration.

"Win some, lose some" IS part of this country's governance, and slow moving change is baked into the country's foundations.

The U.S. was deliberately structured to make political change slow, cautious, and incremental.

It's certainly not that way now--now we have instant change by executive order.

If they dislike that aspect of the country so much that half of them say they want to bail, and only 16% have a sense of national pride, then no, Gen-Z is not a particularly patriotic generation.

Are you proud of the present administration and it's policies?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That is pretty quaint. Fast changes are afoot, and many bode ill for the future of the USA as a republic.

If that's true, and the younger generation is as patriotic as the other poster suggested, seems like all the more reason they should want to stick around and affect change rather than "I'll burn the flag, and then talk about how I want to move to Europe"

 

[BCP1928]

If that's true, and the younger generation is as patriotic as the other poster suggested, seems like all the more reason they should want to stick around and affect change rather than "I'll burn the flag, and then talk about how I want to move to Europe"

So the're all flag burners, too. Strictly speaking, burning the flag is an attempt to affect change through protest. On the other hand, I know a number of people who have moved out of the country because they wanted better jobs or better health care. They didn't burn any flags on their way out, and will happily return if and when America isn't "exceptional" any more.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Many refugees continue to love their home country--in fact, they are criticized for it by the present administration.

Why?

If a person's country is so bad that a person needs to emigrate, that's either evidence that the country's institutions and foundations were flawed, that it lacked the proper checks and balances, or that it hitched its wagon to a non-viable economic plan.

If I ever thought the US became so unstable (economically, politically, or otherwise) that I felt the need to move to Canada, my takeaway would be "welp, I guess I was wrong, the American experiment failed -- Canada is still stable, there must have been some things we overlooked that they had the foresight to plan for, clearly they're better than us", and you'd see a big maple leaf flag in my front yard.

It's certainly not that way now--now we have instant change by executive order.

By "now" do you mean after 1970? (and I'm being generous by not including FDR in this conversation)

Are you proud of the present administration and it's policies?

No, but the America's foundations and system of governance isn't purely defined by whoever the present administration is.

I'm happy to live in a system where executive branch administrations are temporary. If this were parliamentary system, a Trump-style person could be a Prime Minister almost indefinitely given that a PM's only impediment is "lack of party confidence"

 

[durangodawood]

If that's true, and the younger generation is as patriotic as the other poster suggested, seems like all the more reason they should want to stick around and affect change rather than "I'll burn the flag, and then talk about how I want to move to Europe"

I dont see how that follows. But thats was his argument, not mine.

 

[keith99]

Kinda weird, but for the last two questions, none of the multiple choices is correct. Plus it's out of date. Plus Congress is the Legislative Branch.

That is why applicants pay for the services of a test prep company! There are right answers, wrong answers and the official answer. Knowing all the right answers won't always be enough to pass the test. Knowing the official answer(s) will be.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I know our president couldn’t, which is far more concerning.

No you don't.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

View attachment 370276
View attachment 370277

So which is it? (Technically, two correct answers on the first one, and the second one could arguably be "all of the above")

That practice test is garbo.

Maybe the reform is to fix the test so it is easier to answer?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But thats was his argument, not mine.

They had stated something to the effect of "maybe there are some true patriots left"

I just don't see "pack up and leave if I don't win every time" as anything resembling patriotism.


To the conservative team's credit, while a small percentage do things like storming the capital, I don't think I've ever encountered one who expressed a desire to leave the country if the other team wins.

That sort of sentiment seems to be confined to young progressives, and celebs looking for attention.


And the irony is, sometimes the stated reasons they give for leaving don't even make sense because the same things they have a problem with happening here, are even more so in the destination they're moving to.

Rosie and Ellen come to mind... the reason's they stated for leaving and going to England and Ireland (apart from the super ironic one which is, post-menopausal lesbians claiming they're afraid due to Roe v. Wade being overturned)

They mentioned wanting to go to a place that's more welcoming to immigrants (not sure who's been keeping up with those massive anti-immigrant protests in Ireland)

Ireland's abortion restrictions are stricter than most of our red states

The trans debate is just as contentious in England as it is here.

Both countries are still criminalizing marijuana possession.

Many of the same racial issues regarding policing still exist over there

Stop and search

Between April 2022 and March 2023, there were 24.5 stop and searches for every 1,000 black people in England and Wales. There were 5.9 for every 1,000 white people.

www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk

Even with Trump's latest attack on Kimmel factored in, the free speech over there is more restricted.


So, even through a progressive lens, how is moving from California to Ireland or England an "upgrade" in their view?


That'd be like a staunch conservative person saying "they passed a new gun law I don't like here in Pennsylvania, now I can only have 20 rounds instead of 30...I can't take this anymore...and PA's covid restrictions were far too intrusive, that does it! I'm moving to Australia!"

 

[Tuur]

I've only ever seen documentation of one of my ancestors getting naturalized and then only the certificate where he swore to abandon all allegiance to the Kaiser (as if he'd ever lived under such a creature) and not any thing about a test, though no test should be needed for someone who risked life and limb to shoot enemies of the US for the government.

It turns out that my ancestors were here before there was a US. There's even a chance some of them were complaining about all the ones crossing the Atlantic in those great big canoes.

What is wrong with the culture my people have practiced for over 100 years? Why should they adopt the culture and religions of the Yankees just because they were here first? The Yankees didn't adopt the culture of the Massachuset or Wampanoac.

That's not assimilation. Just before the Iranian Hostage Crises, I met Iranian students who came to the US and who dressed like they were in Happy Days because they thought that's what we wore. That didn't make them assimilated.

Assimilation means becoming a part of the culture. That doesn't mean imitating everything about it; that means being a part of it. I don't know how that is in the rest of the world, but being an American is like bringing a dish to a pot luck dinner: You have a little bit of everything. So it was that I've seen a naturalized Sikh who wore traditional clothing, though his son or in-law didn't (we discussed growing tomatoes). Maybe it was less of an adjustment for a former Lithuanian I knew, but we never got into that. I know a naturalized citizen from Portugal who has kept part of her culture, and that's typical. The assimilation part concerns views of government, of liberties, and yes, history, too, and a desire to be part of society and not apart from it.

Now, since you brought it up, there is a strange notion that's cropped up in the last few decades that treats culture as though it's genetic. Had heard of it, but didn't encounter it until the eldest offspring was required to write an essay "What is your culture?" I assume the expectation was that this would connect to where families had come from. Except culture changes. I don't make a living by hitching a mule to a plow like my grandfather and his father and the ones before him did. I don't wear the same clothes. At Christmas we put up a Christmas Tree, something that's surprisingly recent as such things go. My wife has some Indian ancestry, and I've been asked by several Indians if I belong to a particular Indian nation, so they may see something there, So our eldest wrote that we had been in the US so long we weren't sure where all our ancestors came from, and our culture what that of the region where we lived. And really, unless someone deliberately decides to live apart from the culture, that's the case for everyone. As it turns out, our ancestors were here before there was a US. But my culture is radically different from there's.

You wrote that the Yankees didn't adopt the culture of the Massachuset or the Wampanoac, but those who first settled did adopt part of it, They had to in order to survive. Not just agriculture. Buckskins were essential wear on the frontier because brush would shred the cloth of the time. Tanning was usually done like the Indians did it - brain tanning and smoking. Vegetable tanning was also done, but seems that it didn't yield the same results.

In that same vein, until the 20th Century my family grew a bean in corn, planted when the corn was "laid by," that would grow up the dying stalks after the corn had been harvested and served as fodder when cows were turned on it. That sounds suspiciously like a partial adaptation of the Three Sisters method. I also wish I talked to my father more about how they tanned their own leather, but it was a job he despised growing up, so don't know how much he would have told me. But the gist of it sounds for all the world like it was relying on the natural tannins in creek water, and I don't know if that's something they figured out or maybe if it was something indigenous.

 

[Tuur]

View attachment 370276
View attachment 370277

So which is it? (Technically, two correct answers on the first one, and the second one could arguably be "all of the above")

That practice test is garbo.

Uh-uh. Remember division of powers? Legislative, executive, and judicial? Legislative legislates; executive makes it so; and judicial renders legal decisions. If you're young enough, remember the Schoolhouse Rock "I'm just a bill, sitting on a hill?" That was after my time, and was so long ago it was maybe long before many here, but the gist is that congress makes laws. Both chambers of Congress has to approve it to forward it to the president, and he has to sign it to pass it into law. The USSC ever since John Marshall has delegated to itself deciding whether laws passed by congress are constitutional, and presidents have, from time to time, refused to carry out the law. Where applicable by law, a president can issue executive orders, which are traditionally hailed as good by his own party and condemned as crossing the division of powers by the other.