Where does Father Christmas come from? How old do you have to be to buy a lottery ticket? If your adult son declares he's a homosexual, what do you do? If a film or a book insults your religious feelings, what is your reaction? Why are aboriginal peoples seeking self-government? Who has the power to declare war?
Answering such questions appropriately may not define you as a citizen of the world, even in this era of supposed globalization, but it would help get you citizenship in Britain (the first two questions), Germany (the second two), Canada (the next) or the US (the last).
Perhaps never before in human history has so much energy been devoted to trying to establish citizenship tests to define national identity. Judging from the debates raging and the confused choices made, there is as little agreement within each country as there is between them.
In the US, discussions about creating a new citizenship test have been going on for a decade. About US$3.5 million has been spent since 2001 when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) promised a redesign. In 2004, a report from the National Research Council recommended more bureaucratic consultation, leading to concerns that the process was going to become an extended series of debates. A non-profit concern, the American Institutes for Research, was then asked to make a more practical "feasibility study." On Tuesday, the Citizenship and Immigration Service (the successor to the INS) will announce recommendations about how much the tests should be modified or whether they should be changed at all.
Britain, meanwhile, introduced a new citizenship test in November and is beginning formal induction ceremonies like those in the US. Last week, the Guardian reported that the Netherlands was beginning a pilot program in which tests about Dutch language and culture would be administered to prospective immigrants in their native countries. The government also planned to require all immigrants who stay in the Netherlands more than three years to take citizenship classes. And, earlier this month, the Baden-Wuerttemberg region of Germany instituted questions to be asked only of Muslims from particular countries -- questions dealing with women's rights, religious freedom and domestic life.
One reason for the flurry of activity has been just what the German questions so bluntly address: the phenomenon of Muslim immigrants and citizens in Europe who not only are segregated from a nation's culture but also hostile to it. In 2004, for example, a poll found that 21 percent of Muslims in Germany believed the Koran and the German Constitution were incompatible. Hence these attempts to establish a shared identity based on particular beliefs and facts.
But which ones? Even where the notion of identity would seem to be fairly secure, notions of citizenship can be slight. In Britain, the Home Office minister said the new procedures were meant to "help new citizens to gain a greater appreciation of the civic and political dimensions of British citizenship." But while the 45-minute test includes questions about the structure of the British government and emphasizes Britain's religious identity ("What is the Church of England and who is its head?"), the main emphasis is on the test's title: "Life in the UK."
Judging from news reports and sample questions, the test treats British culture not as a product of centuries of evolution and political struggle with stunning achievements (and failures) -- in fact, there is almost no history on the test at all -- but as a set of practical behaviors along with correct attitudes toward women and ethnic minorities.
The practical can be trivial: If you spill someone else's beer in a pub, what should you do? What is the voltage of British electric outlets? It is as if too much shouldn't be expected, because there is not too much worth championing. Prospective citizens less fluent in English are met with even lower expectations: They take a "skills for life" course instead of an exam and demonstrate their competence to the instructor.
By comparison, the existing US test of history and civics knowledge seems fairly robust. Objections to it arose partly because in the 1990s -- a record decade for immigration -- standards had become so lax, that in many cases background checks of aspirants failed to turn up significant criminal records. In 1997, the Commission on Immigration Reform also found that there was no consistency in administering or scoring the tests; often delivered orally in regional offices, they were sometimes informally scaled by the examiners. The commission also objected to the tests' reliance on memorization of facts rather than on broader concepts.
When the redesign began in earnest in early 2001, "stakeholder groups" -- social service and legal agencies, schools, advocates for immigration -- objected, some contending that the intention was to make the test more difficult and leave less discretion for the examiners. The planned date for a new test, this year, has been abandoned. Alfonso Aguilar, the chief of the Office of Citizenship, suggests that a more realistic goal would be next year or 2008.
The current test covers a fair amount of trivia: the name of the Pilgrims' ship; in which month a president is inaugurated. But there are also important questions about government structure ("Why are there 100 senators in the Senate?") and ideas ("What is the basic belief of the Declaration of Independence?"). No specific replacement questions have been publicly proposed.
"We see the test as an instrument to promote civic learning and patriotism," Aguilar said in a telephone interview last week. The purpose, he said, is not to limit immigration but to create a system in which the process of naturalization works. "Our history has been one of expanded citizenship," he said.
A new test could do no better than emphasize that point and demonstrate the kinds of commitments made in citizenship. The process, after all, is called naturalization because it really does change the alien into the natural, the foreign into the familiar. The immigrant is giving up one identity and taking on another; in the process, both country and citizen are transformed.
This has tended to be easier in the US, where the very idea of the nation is bound up with immigration, than in countries whose idea of the nation is bound up with an inherited past. Yet now, even European nations must present themselves in another form, as sets of ideas and customs, as cultures being offered in exchange for sacrifices demanded. That social contract is not being negotiated with much confidence in Britain, and it seems shaky enough elsewhere, too. The US generally seems more sure of what it is offering; coming months will show how sure it is of what it is asking.
BORDER PATROL
Here are some sample questions from the new tests:
BRITAIN
● How interested are young people in politics? What do they see as the main issues today?
● Do women have equal rights and has this always been the case?
● How many people say they have a religion and how many attend religious services? What are the largest religious groups?
● Where are Geordie, Cockney and Scouse dialects spoken?
● What are quangos and non-departmental public bodies?
BADEN-WUERTTEMBERG
● What is your position on the statement that a wife should belong to her husband and that he can beat her if she isn't obedient?
● What do you think about parents forcibly marrying off their children? Do you think that such marriages are compatible with human dignity?
● Your fully grown daughter/your wife wants to dress like other German women. Would you try to stop that? By what means?
● Imagine that your grown son comes to you and declares that he is a homosexual and wants to live with another man. How would you react?
Sources: www.lifeintheuktest.gov.uk, www.islam.de.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers