Amend the US Naturalization Test

In this unit of Argument we focused on the concept of Anti-thesis. This being an organization of premises with a conclusion that counters an original thesis. We researched the constitution and discussed the role of the amendments and bill of rights in history. We visited a Citizenship and Naturalization court to witness how immigrant asylum cases take place. We also attended a City Council meeting on Public Charge, where the state is fighting to keep its sanctuary status against the Trump Administration's federal decisions on immigrants. People from organizations and programs spoke, as well as George Blakemore, a well known social activist in Chicago. In class we also discussed current events, such  as city decisions being made by private contractors who have plans to build luxury condos, costing millions of dollars. There is a segregation of public and private actions happening in our city. On the other hand, this unit's action project focused on the U.S. Naturalization test in relation to the court cases we witnessed, which I present to you now:

The U.S. Naturalization test is used to examine whether or not someone applying for citizenship is eligible or not. It consists of various topics that each umbrella a series of questions. Such as the history of American wars, important historical American figures, and American policies. I created a syllogism to describe the test's argument:

P1: A variety of categories that covers Democracy, Government, History and Geography
P2: Specific factual questions
P3: Includes large number of questions
P4: Examinee has a 6/10 chance to pass test

Conclusion: An exam that enables immigrant to study content thoroughly and show ability to present factual knowledge.

 Some questions hold significance because I think it is beneficial for an immigrant to know about the country they will be living in. However, the goal of my action project is to amend the U.S. Naturalization test through my own ideas of what I think makes it just.

I chose three questions from that I felt were irrelevant and could be more valuable:

29. What is the name of the Vice President of the United States now?

• Improved version - What are the goals of the vice president?  

This question intends to test the examinee on the current politics of the country. The reason I amended it this way is so that they understand the intentions of someone in the government, rather than just their name.

41. Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government?

• Improved version - What is the difference between state government and federal government?

Question 41 has the immigrant show understanding of what the federal government can do. I changed it to a comparison of governments because I didn't even acknowledge myself that there is existing conflict between state and federal government. I find more significance in them knowing how the people within the whole country have an ability to regulate smaller areas.

54. How old do citizens have to be to vote for President?

• Improved version - Will you vote for President? If not, why?

This question informs what voting abilities someone has in America. I changed it to personal opinion because it can help the test judge understand if personal reasoning and what would be stopping them.

This test holds a lot of factual knowledge that needs to be studied and memorized. Someone who desires to be a citizen can still hold false intentions behind stating those facts correctly. In this process of amendment I wanted the test to consider the role of story telling within citizenship rather than its "Pass/Fail" mentality. The worth should be acknowledged by effort. Becoming a citizen means telling a story, and how America will become integrated in the person's journey. Truth and authenticity doesn't need to hold a literal element, it can be abstract if it has an ability to voice. The intention is connecting America's timeline with that potential citizen's timeline. A congruence of experiences and potential. Of course, a person introduced onto American soil should learn enough about it to find those points of compatibility.

The pressing question is can someone tell their story in a way that shows purpose? In other words, how will their authenticity be assessed or evaluated? The test judges can be people with ability of interpretation. History professors and English majors have that practice.

I present another syllogism for my amendment of the test:

P1: Based off of authentic reasoning
P2: Requires personal narrative
P3: Interpretive truth
P4: Test judges with practice in interpretation

Conclusion: This improved exam acknowledges the role of this person's life into the role of America's story and vice versa. It is less institutionalized.

A classmate in support of my amendment said, "I think that this is better than the way the test is now because it is personalized."

Josefina Casas, 2019

I chose this image as a metaphor for how people sell themselves to portray an impression to gain access. A test shouldn't be set up to a point where people applying for citizenship feel the need to tell a factual truth covered by a veil of oppressing their true self, only focusing on "correct" or "incorrect" results.

I found this unit clarifying because it explained legal instances that happen the public can attend if they wanted to. It opened up ways one can express their concerns that can sway an important decision. I didn't know this test for citizenship existed for immigrants. I understand more now on how America acknowledges its people.