Back to Catigny Home
Conference program:
What is American Citizenship?
Dual (or Plural) Citizenship?
Are Mexicans a Special Case?
Teaching Immigrants About America
I. WHAT IS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP?
To Possess the National Consciousness of an American
The American Civic Regime Will Be Perpetuated
Questions about Citizenship
- be able to vote?
- be able to bring over any family members
- be allowed to have complete access to public education at the college level?
- be allowed to have their cataracts fixed and paid for by Medicare?
The Obligations of the Past Versus the Present
571 Million Americans?
II. DUAL (OR PLURAL) CITIZENSHIP?
Immigration and Social Cohesion
- No voting in foreign elections if one is a U.S. citizen
- No uniformed service for dual citizens in America
- No policymaking roles for dual citizens in America
Dual Citizenship? Not a Problem
Issues of Multiple Citizenship
Steve Sailer asked the panelists to consider a referendum on the clause in the oath of citizenship pledging renunciation of prior allegiances. "How have we got to the point where people are lying and breaking their oath without ever having any discussion on this in the general public?" he asked.
Spiro responded by suggesting first that there are "extremely strong" arguments "for abandoning the renunciation altogether," and that the American public by and large cares little for it, or at least are not expressing any outward concern over it.
Renshon responded by noting that his interest in this subject evolved out of his research on leadership, and he shared the view that "courageous leadership" is especially important in a country confronting "large questions arising out of diversity." He claimed that American leaders have been "increasingly fearful of broaching these subjects in a direct way and really asking for people to talk candidly about them."
He cited President Clinton's race initiative as an example. "God knows we need a frank discussion about race, diversity, and ethnicity and what it means to be in this country," he said, "but that's not what we had in that particular discussion."
Michael Horowitz suggested that the trend in support of multiple citizenships was leading to "complete absurdities," adding as an example that he saw an individual's holding an elected office in a foreign land as philosophically problematic. Spiro agreed with him on the latter point.
Horowitz then noted that the lack of public discourse on the matter was a result of a Supreme Court decision one he termed "jurisprudentially indefensible"--that found it unconstitutional for Congress to regulate the citizenship of those who vote in another country's election. Spiro offered a clarification of the Supreme Court ruling: The court, he said, ruled it unconstitutional to deny an American-born citizen who naturalizes in another country the full privileges of his or her American citizenship as a result.
Steinlight offered the model of citizenship as a "contract that people make" with others in their society that "essentially says that we are going to stick together for better or for worse." He said that a system that allowed for opting in and opting out of citizenship out of convenience renders the members of the society unaccountable. Shouldn't we hold people to a contract of societal obligations once they've sworn an oath of allegiance, he asked?
Spiro responded by alluding to one attack frequently made against the concept of dual citizenship that it represents "a hedged bet on becoming an American," and that individuals will always be free to leave and return. He suggested that what dual citizenship means instead is retaining a commitment to another country in a way that poses no threat to the American national interest.
Renshon responded by noting that the number of people now residing in the U.S. eligible for dual citizenship establishes a notably different set of circumstances for assessing dual citizenship's impact, as compared to earlier periods. Issues are just now emerging, he said, and will continue to in the years ahead.
Karl Zinsmeister raised the notion that dual citizenship is problematic symbolically, but that symbolic power carries great effect. He alluded to Renshon's discussion of the psychology of commitment and suggested that dual citizenship represented "the disappearance of loyalty." He claimed that Americans feel a responsibility for fellow citizens "in whom they have no personal interest," and he called this responsibility part of the American "social contract," an "ideal and commitment to each other." This is an intangible quality, he admitted, and yet one "terribly important to our national success, and it's very much threatened by these symbolic things." He attributed the enthusiasm for dual citizenship to the pursuit of "individual self-maximization" and "the rise of personal autonomy at the expense of wider, larger loyalty."
Spiro responded by noting the conflict faced by Japanese-Americans, who were American citizens, at the advent of World War II, and he suggested that the dual citizenship issue is "bogged down in notions of loyalty and allegiance."
Robert Pickus reminded participants that the "most moving" aspect of "any immigrant's experience" is the swearing-in ceremony. "The room shakes with feeling," he said. He also suggested that the scope of immigration to the U.S. will eventually force the dual-citizenship issue into the consciousness of Americans. With respect to the issue of allegiance in a time of war, he added that a multiplicity of nationalities and loyalties would not make for less war but rather "more chaos." He called the issue of dual citizenship a "bellwether" issue, "capable of doing great harm."
Renshon contended that many issues often debated about immigration, such as bilingual education, are "subsumed" under the larger question of where one's identification and loyalty are, which is at the heart of the dual-citizenship debate. "Frankly, I have a lot of trouble with why it is so hard for people to ask of people who come to our country and partake of all the things that it has to offer, to ask of them in return that they make really rather minimal steps along the line of commitment, which, hopefully, over time, would become more consolidated."
Mark Krikorian, of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), reminded participants that 27 million foreign born currently reside in the U.S., and he noted that were this figure not nearly so high, the debates and problems surrounding dual citizenship "would increasingly fade away." He claimed, too, that dual citizenship "in a sense, sends the message that you're not a real American, [that] you're one of those pretend Americans, and that's a very dangerous development in a society like ours that is so heterogeneous."
Carens responded to these points by noting that many nations address dual citizenship by recognizing a "dominant citizenship" and a "dormant citizenship," the latter applying to the country from which an individual emigrated. A dormant citizenship could be "reactivated," he said, but only upon return to that country. He also noted the historical trend of citizenship's being conferred through fathers and therefore having considerable gender bias.
Renshon and Spiro offered summary responses that concluded the session. Renshon claimed that he was advocating the naturalization of individuals who seek to live in the United States "for a particular set of reasons." In return for citizenship, the United States would ask of them, he said, some level of commitment for instance, learning English. Newcomers would also be asked to learn the U.S. "experience" he said, and to "think about the ways in which their experience dovetails with our experience."
"All of those things are meant to make them feel more like they're a part of us," he added.
Renshon also noted that since so many Americans, even college-educated ones, have difficulty in identifying the myriad issues involved in American politics, could we plausibly expect people adhering to two cultures to do so? He called such a notion "cognitively not feasible."
Spiro concluded by stating that he thinks America should "desacralize" its notion of citizenship. To that end, he suggested that America ought to think of itself as a "membership organization," and that in the future the nation was likely to see robust challenges "in terms of maintaining the commitment of its members." Part of maintaining the commitment of America's members in the future, he suggested, would include "lowering the cost of initial membership."
III. ARE MEXICANS A SPECIAL CASE?
Though Peter Skerry said the short answer to the question of whether immigration from Mexico is a special case may be yes, he added that behind this lies a more important question: "What is the political significance of this Mexican exceptionalism?"
He then proceeded to cite evidence of how Mexican immigration is a special case, but "with an eye to demonstrating that on balance none of the at times troubling evidence about Mexican exceptionalism looms as large as the influences of our own political culture and institutions on Mexican immigrants and their offspring."
Skerry noted first that today's immigrant stream is "much less diverse" than the last great wave of immigration a century ago. About 28 to 30 percent of the current immigrant population is Mexican; adding immigrants from other Spanish-speaking countries who are often identified as Hispanics or Latinos brings the total of Spanish-speaking immigrants up to approximately 50 percent of the total.
Acknowledging that almost 40 percent of America's illegal aliens are from Mexico, Skerry pointed out that while this fuels the perception that most Mexicans are illegals, this is not the case. Nor is Mexico by any means the only source of illegal immigration; nearly half of all illegals in the U.S. are visa overstayers, of whom just over 20 percent are Mexican. He added that these misconceptions contribute to a "Mexican myopia which is our preoccupation, perhaps even our obsession, with our southern border."
Mexicans also are concentrated in America's Southwest, a region, Skerry pointed out that was once part of their homeland, which puts them in a very distinctive situation from other immigrants to America." There remain in the Southwest remnants of Mexican heritage, ranging from place names, to the style of architecture, to its ranching culture. Skerry also noted that in the middle of the 19th century, Mexico lost half its land to the U.S. Consequently, "Mexican and Mexican-origin individuals are continually reminded that the region was once part of Mexico," he said.
"In some fundamental sense," he added, "this is indigenous territory for Mexicans."
Skerry's research has led him to observe that among Mexican and Mexican-origin individuals there is a sense of being "a conquered people... especially in Texas." Though some Chicanos, he said, "make too much of this historical awareness," Anglo-Americans, conversely, sometimes make too little of it.
Skerry also traced the history of formal U.S. immigration policy with respect to Mexico. The quota system implemented in 1924, he noted, applied only to Europe and Asia. Mexicans and immigrants from other Western hemisphere countries did not become subject to quantitative restrictions until 1968, and even then U.S. employers were exempted from any penalties for hiring illegal immigrants a good example of how American immigration policy has served the national interest--especially this country's economic interests.
Though the naturalization rate of Mexican immigrants is low, it is not all that different from the rate for Canadians, leading Skerry to speculate that proximity to the U.S. may have an effect. More important, he stated, is the fact that "I don't see evidence of divided loyalties among Mexicans in the United States."
Skerry also stressed that though Americans may perceive issues such as bilingual education, affirmative action, and voting rights advanced on behalf of Mexican-Americans as divisive, none of the serious policies advocated by Mexican-American organizations and leaders translate into territorial or separatist claims. He suggested that such advocacy seeks not to divide Mexican-Americans from their new countrymen, but rather reflects "the fundamental Mexican-American desire for inclusion into the mainstream of American society," a view that he said was perhaps distinct from Huntington's position in his keynote address.
Skerry concluded his remarks by claiming that the initiatives of Mexican-Americans in the U.S. today "reflect the lessons and the incentives of contemporary American political institutions that they are trying to adapt to and are adapting to, albeit in ways that I acknowledge are divisive and often counterproductive." But such strategies, he added, "reflect American political dynamics, not the unique situation of Mexican-American relations."
Mexican Immigrants: Similarities and Differences
Manuel Garcia y Griego placed his discussion of Mexicans as a special immigrant group within the context of examining this group at different points in the 20th century. He identified Mexican immigrants as "quite different" from a majority of the European immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, specifically because of their "manner of incorporation" into the U.S. and the "context of their reception." Conversely, he suggested that Mexican immigrants are "quite similar to the European flow" in their "motivation for migration and in their aspirations for life in the United States."
He identified the act of migration as "very much a self-interest and market-motivated kind of phenomenon," one characterizing European immigrants as much as Mexicans.
Garcia y Griego asserted that the similarities and differences between Mexican immigrants and other ethnic immigrant groups have produced a duality of outcomes, which he termed "a bimodal pattern of incorporation outcomes." One outcome, he noted, is that there is a widespread "lament" about the deficit in educational and socioeconomic achievement for Mexican immigrants and second- and third-generation Mexican-Americans as well. And yet these newcomers, he noted, share many values and political philosophies with their new countrymen; he specifically identified polls citing Mexican-American positions on abortion and even immigration controls. "Mexican-Americans, in some significant ways, mirror the native-born population," he said.
It is not unusual, Garcia y Griego, said, for him to attend a meeting of a Mexican-American organization and hear reference to the number of Mexican-American Congressional Medal of Honor winners or the number of Mexican-Americans serving in the armed forces of the United States. But at the same time, he acknowledged, Mexican immigrants have among the lowest naturalization rates of any ethnic group.
He then identified five themes that fall within his two larger points about the distinctions between Mexican and non-Mexican immigrants:
- Illegal entry, as a "preeminent mode of arrival," is perhaps a "defining characteristic" of Mexican immigration to the United States. "Even most legal immigrants from Mexico first came illegally," Garcia y Griego said. "The only way many Mexican immigrants could obtain legal admission [early in the 20th century] was to first enter illegally, acquire a job, and then petition for legal status."
- Mexican legal immigration "has come to be equated with a labor migration... with a flow of workers, of unskilled workers, into a particular set of industries and particular kinds of occupations farm work, sweatshops, entry-level service jobs." Earlier immigrants from Europe also entered into low-paying jobs, he noted, but in relation to today's American economy, the discrepancy in Mexicans wages and conditions is significant.
- There has been and remains a sense that Mexican migration into the U.S. is temporary, rather than a resettlement. Much of this is a result of the fact that so many of the immigrants are illegal. A low-skilled, low-educated migration widely thought to locate in the U.S. only temporarily understandably retards assimilation, Garcia y Griego said.
- Second- and third-generation Mexican-American organizations "have adopted as their principal goal the successful incorporation or re-assimilation of their population in the United States."
- Mexicans are among both the oldest and the newest of immigrant flows into the U.S. "Large-scale, illegal immigration to the United States from Mexico is recorded in the 1940s and early 1950s," he pointed out. The formation of the Border Patrol in the 1920s also reflects this fact.
- Garcia y Griego reminded participants that Mexicans are "to a great extent, like other non-Europeans, only more so." The post-1965 immigrant flow, most of it originating in Latin America and Asia, he said, "has come in both at the top and at the bottom of the socioeconomic status scale."
The Mexican Case
Martin Ford of the Maryland Office for New Americans questioned the accuracy of Skerry's claim that today's immigrant flow lacks diversity compared to preceding ones. He suggested that while California and Texas certainly receive disproportionately large flows of Mexican immigrants, other states with heavy immigration, such as New York, New Jersey, Florida, and perhaps Illinois, receive a truly diverse range of immigrants. Skerry pointed out that his claims were echoed in Huntington's keynote remarks and also by prominent researchers, including George Borjas and Arthur Mann. He also noted that in assessing the ethnic composition of an immigrant flow, a premium must be placed on a examining a finite period of time. Mexicans represent nearly 30 percent of today's flow, which is double the percentage of Germans immigrating to the U.S. between 1870 and 1920, when they were the largest immigrant group.
Syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer asked both panelists to address the more controversial implications of the session's topic for instance, American citizens or legal residents voting in a foreign election or serving in the armed forces of a foreign nation. Garcia y Gregio responded that Mexican authorities would be as troubled by such voting as she is and that the Mexican government "makes a distinction between nationality and citizenship" that does not allow for Mexicans to be citizens in both countries. Skerry responded by claiming that assimilation by Mexicans is "ongoing," and that while he does share some of Geyer's concerns, he does not find them to be "at the center" of this debate. Instead, he would like to see the "terms of assimilation" addressed. Geyer's concerns, in comparison, he said, were "very much down the road."
Peter Spiro wondered if the per-country cap on immigration visas, which range between 20,000 and 25,000 annually, isn't exacerbating lack of diversity by encouraging illegal immigration from Mexico. He asked whether we should therefore be addressing our concern to illegal immigration.
Mark Krikorian interjected to remind participants that the per-country caps do not apply to immediate relatives or certain other immigration categories. The caps, he said, "really restrain no one, that's why Mexico has such a higher number than 20,000 [legal immigrants each year]." Krikorian then asked the panel to consider whether the size of the Mexican immigrant population in the U.S., organized to a large degree in effective advocacy groups, had a notably "problematic impact" on multicultural America.
Skerry acknowledged that Mexican-American leaders and organizations had no interest in "regulating or restricting the flow of immigration from Mexico at all, because it enlarges their constituency." But earlier Mexican-American leaders were comparatively receptive to advocating restrictions on immigration from Mexico, he said, because these leaders had stronger ties to "a much more vibrant labor movement." Large numbers of immigrants from Mexico were difficult to organize, "destabilizing" the institutions these leaders represented, he claimed.
Samuel Huntington offered some clarification of the remarks he had made in his keynote address. He reiterated that he does not advocate having a fence erected along the border with Mexico only because, however, "it wouldn't work." He added that any exploration of immigration from Mexico must be approached within the context of overall U.S. relations with that country. Finally, he offered enthusiastic endorsement of Skerry's remarks about the "crucial role" that "American politics, political institutions, and post-1965 American politics and institutions play in shaping" immigration policy today. "The environment of this country is so very, very different now than it was when we had other large-scale immigration," he concluded.
Steve Sailer claimed that the white ruling class in Mexico has for a long while viewed immigration as a "safety valve" to prevent race riots as well as wars within Mexico. He also suggested that Mexican presidents likely view the migration of the poorest Mexicans out of the country as a legitimate economic strategy. He said that the outgoing PRI president discussed openly the formation of a "dual loyalty lobby within the United States" modeled after the Jewish lobby for Israel. Such a lobby, he said, would push for even more immigration from Mexico.
Sailer then laid out a scenario in which newly elected presidents George W. Bush and Vincente Fox convene a summit in which some stark policies are brokered. Bush would reject Fox's call for open borders, Sailer suggested, but agree to calls for an increase in legal immigration quotas. For his part, Fox would pledge to "cut down on illegal immigration," which, Sailer noted, "I imagine will be just as effective as Mexico's cutting down on the drug trade."
John Fonte followed these remarks by "pressing" Peter Spiro on the issue of assimilation. He claimed that in bilingual education classes students often are using Mexican textbooks, being instructed by Mexican teachers, and occasionally the Mexican flag is raised in the classrooms. He suggested that the combination of multiculturalism with dual citizenship and dual nationality leads to a "transnational regime."
Robert Leiken of the Brookings Institute responded by noting that while Mexican textbooks are shipped to America in large numbers, they are not used as "basic texts" in American schools. He claimed that the scenario sketched by Fonte was far more a "caricature" of schools than an accurate reflection. Ron Unz, chairman of English for the Children, followed by observing that there is some anecdotal accuracy to Fonte's claims, but that they are not representative.
Toward the end of the session, Horowitz offered a picture of the evolution of the American political landscape after some decades of mass immigration. He noted that at present there are jurisdictions in which a Republican candidate who wins just 15 percent of the black vote necessarily wins the election. Conversely, a Democratic candidate, he said, who wins 35 percent of the white vote similarly wins. In the years ahead, he suggested, a Republican candidate is likely to find himself in an election in which even winning 20 percent of the non-white vote won't be enough. "And here's where we get to the evil," he said. "Sam Huntington says there won't be fences built around the United States. I'm not so sure. If we get to the point where there's the white party and there's the party of color and all you need is a handful of people on the other side and you win elections, we've got a very different country and we've got tensions of the sort Georgie Anne Geyer is talking about," he added.
Horowitz also noted the disparity in rhetoric he sees between the civil rights movement of the 1960s, during which he served as a civil rights law professor in Mississippi, and that characterizing the politics of today. The individual rights championed in the 1960s, he said, have given way to the group rights and grievances of today.
Joseph Carens responded to these concerns by acknowledging that probably most participants at the conference would agree that "multiculturalism and group rights" do not offer solutions to the problems faced by ethnic communities. But on some level, he claimed, there does have to be "group consciousness" the words of Peter Skerry, he noted in order to begin the process of identifying and thinking through the problems constituencies face.
Susan Gzesh, director of the Mexico-U.S. Advocates Network, noted the "tremendous acceleration in the economic, social, and cultural integration of the United States and Mexico." She asked, presented with evidence that 10 percent of Mexico's population now lives in the U.S., and a third of that in illegal status, "What are we going to do about it?"
"Expulsion is impossible...fences don't work," she added, and, therefore, "How do we incorporate people into our political spectrum?" She asked participants to share with her their ideas for devising a "two-track system" in which "we have an economic, social, and cultural reality and the legal regime, which doesn't really seem to accord with that."
Finally, Peter Skerry spoke to respond to Michael Horowitz's points about the future of racial and ethnic politics. He said he shared Horowitz's concerns about the formation of a white party and a non-white party. But he criticized Horowitz's insistence on drawing a firm distinction between the immigrants of the past who expressed "gratitude" for their experience and today's, who, Horowitz claimed, seem often to express "grievance." This distinction, Skerry claimed, "Can't co-exist in the same political thrust," or else "you're going to create such a white party."
IV. TEACHING IMMIGRANTS ABOUT AMERICA
Charles Bahmueller opened his remarks by addressing the issue of whether or not history and civic education should be changed or discarded. He shared with participants the principle he adheres to, namely, that "American democracy is membership in the political association that establishes and operates the American political system." He added that the individual American citizen is "the center in the foundation of the system."
He also took issue with the argument made by panelists and participants supportive of equality of status between citizens and non-citizens: "Just because citizens and non-citizens in the United States share many of the same rights, the idea that they're almost identical is an illusion. Resident aliens are not almost citizens. They're qualitatively different. It's not the quantity of rights that should be compared, but the qualitative difference of those rights."
Bahmueller claimed that America's political association is premised on the idea of "popular sovereignty," and that the "sovereign American people" are constituted by "the whole body of American citizens and only citizens." It is the notion of citizens being sovereign, he added, that leads to the conclusion that, collectively, "citizenship is the highest office in the land." Citizens within a liberal democracy, he stated, can be said "to own their government."
"They set it up. They can change it," he asserted.
As is true of other associations, the American people are empowered to craft rules about adding members according to Bahmueller. This process of adding members is "fundamental to the democratic process," he added. When citizens lose control over the system that adds new members, American democracy becomes "gibberish." The naturalization process, he pointed out, is the mechanism by which Americans decide who will and who will not be added as new citizens.
Bahmueller maintained that a prerequisite for any "fundamental changes" to the naturalization process is the "widespread" consent of the American people. In lieu of that, he cited what he called the "cattle chute" theory of democracy. In it, "you round up herds of people, brand them citizens as fast as humanly possible, get your friends to run the herds through the voting turnstiles like cattle through chutes, and trust that most of them will vote the way you want them to."
"This is the disgraceful procedure that went on in 1996," he added, "and it means that those responsible don't take democracy seriously. What they take seriously is winning elections."
The overriding principle that ought to govern naturalization, he said, is the conception of "binding prospective citizens to their new country." This involves informing the applicant of:
- what it means to be an American;
- who we are and where we came from;
- our demand of a commitment to the U.S. Constitution,and a commitment to the "value and principles of liberal democracy."
The purpose of naturalization, he said, is to "Americanize" immigrants, which means putting them through "a process of civic assimilation." The argument that other countries have no such concern for civic education is irrelevant, Bahmueller said; the United States has such an interest, and has had it for a long time.
One commonly heard argument against the civic education of immigrants is the poor level of knowledge of such history by natives, particularly young Americans. "What this argument amounts to," Bahmueller asserted, "is the view that since we do such a lousy job at giving a civic education to our youth, we should be sure that prospective citizens get an equally lousy civic education."
Bahmueller shifted his focus to the history and civics test taken by those seeking naturalization. In his opinion, the existing test is "practically meaningless." He read aloud some of the 100 questions asked on the exam:
- What are the colors of the flag?
- How many stars are in our flag?
- What are the colors of the stars in our flag?
- What do the stars in our flag mean?
He also identified the "omega" question in the exam: "How many states are there in the United States?"
"I think this test is a national disgrace," Bahmueller said. "It belittle and trivializes the richness of the American experience." He asserted that the exam offers clear evidence that America does not take civic assimilation seriously and called for its rigorous overhaul, but not toward a test that would be "exclusionary."
"The kind of test I am advocating would be passed by the overwhelming majority of applicants," he said. He added that the study involved for this new test would result in the applicants' "learning something they'd get something out of it." Bahmueller cited two publications from which test material should be drawn, the Center for Civic Education's elementary textbook on the U.S. Constitution and the standards published by the National Standards for Civics and Government.
He then offered a specific example of how an existing question could be replaced and improved upon. The current exam asks test takers simply to identify the three branches of government. Bahmueller argued that understanding why the founders established three separate branches would be significantly more important than simply being able to name them.
Bahmueller concluded by making an argument for an "emotional element in citizenship." He noted that such an element cannot be compulsory, but he saw it as vital for establishing a bond between the newcomer and his or her new country.
Civic Education: An Ongoing Concern
Don Bragaw began by agreeing with Bahmueller that history and civics education should be changed. However, he then offered some historical perspective on criticism of civics understanding. A few weeks before this conference, he noted, the poor civics understanding of college freshmen made national news. He then recalled civics tests of students that Alan Nevins of Columbia University conducted every 10 years from the 1940s through the 1960s. The results?
"They knew nothing," Bragaw said.
The situation continues, he pointed out. Since 1983, similar tests have been commissioned and executed by historians, political scientists, and others every 5 or 10 years. All of them expressed "great dismay" at the results, Bragaw said. "It's not that our textbooks and our history are not good," he suggested. "We add to our history, [but] we do not make it better. Our textbooks get larger, to the point where there are now students who are going to chiropractic institutions because they can no longer carry them easily from class to class."
Echoing the concern expressed by Bahmueller regarding the trivial quality of the questions on the naturalization exam, Bragaw termed them "How To Become a Millionaire" questions. However, the sheer breadth that has become American history, he maintained, renders attempts at mastering it an "absurdity." Nor have schools and teachers changed the methodology by which students go about learning, he added.
Bragaw, too, called for a redesigned naturalization exam. Part of the new and improved exam, he suggested, would be both a visual and oral component structured around a local or national issue. The written portion of the exam, too, would derive from some issue of importance. Such a three-part naturalization test would be, he said, "a test of true civic behavior rather than getting through the notion of whether or not they've memorized a certain body of information."
How Should We Teach Immigrants about America?
Stanley Renshon asked about the likelihood that any initiative to toughen up the naturalization exam would experience the same fate as numerous other "toughening" initiatives in education. He opined that when failure rates increase, and subsequent public outcry dominates, relaxation of new standards is inevitable.
Bahmueller suggested that the price people are willing to pay to achieve citizenship likely is high enough that they would be willing to do what was asked of them in a new and toughened exam. Certainly, he said, some level of experimentation is in order, for questions such as, "What color is the flag?" cannot be allowed to continue. Bragaw reminded participants that today's standards are "strictly voluntary" and therefore amendable.
Bahmueller defended his claims of corruption associated with naturalization in the 1996 election cycle. He also noted that whereas corruption was also associated with the political machines in the 1920s and 1930s, today no such machines exist to assist immigrants beyond participation in the elections themselves.
Georgie Anne Geyer supported Bahmueller's claims about the hollowness of today's naturalization process. "There is no citizenship process in this country," she maintained. "Today the tests are absurd; usually people will only get [asked] three questions."
She pointed out that beginning in the late 1980s, citizenship preparation and testing was contracted out to private groups, "many of them ethnic lobbies."
"There's been one scandal after another," Geyer noted. "These companies are taking money from the federal government and not preparing people at all." She stated her view that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is "not here for the benefit of the immigrants; the INS is here to preserve the American polity." She concluded by suggesting that what is needed is a decision by Congress on the number of immigrants allowed to enter the country.
Robert Pickus noticed that this and the other discussions during the conference reflected views or questions with respect to three constituencies; the community/political community as a group, as a nation, and "literally, [the] transnational world."
"They need to be put together," he said.
He then shared his experience as part of a task group a few years ago that addressed immigration and citizenship, which examined questions such as, "What should the INS do with respect to the naturalization exam?" He was particularly struck by the posture of an attorney representing an ethnic advocacy group who articulated the problematic aspects of America's past. She even challenged, he said, those ideas that were identified as "American," suggesting instead that they were "universal." When the task group put forward its recommendations, which Pickus characterized as bearing the assessment that America was indeed good, but that people should "participate in correcting the future," the attorney insisted on having her name removed from the recommendations out of political considerations.
He concluded his remarks by suggesting that in the face of such events, "medicine," the likes of which John Fonte proposed, is necessary and useful. "There just aren't many people giving the old medicine... the old medicine is good medicine."
Martin Ford offered his support of the assessment that the current naturalization tests are "extremely bad" and that they "trivialize the process." He also offered a clarification of the role of ethnic groups in preparing and administering naturalization exams, pointing out that they have been removed from the process altogether because of the scandals.
Alice Cottingham, executive director of the Fund for Immigrants and Refugees, informed participants that most people preparing to become U.S. citizens are adults, and since their children quite often are U.S. citizens by birth, "the locus of citizenship education is adult education [and] not children's." She noted that low-income, limited-English immigrants are those most likely to seek out publicly funded education services. Refugees, she said, comprise a sizable portion of this group. Of the naturalization exam itself, she offered that it was probably the issue on which the greatest consensus existed among conference participants. She characterized the exam as "trivialized", "meaningless for everybody involved," and "disrespectful to everyone involved."
Steve Sailer noted that the United States military has an impressive record of forging cohesion among soldiers from varied racial and ethnic backgrounds. He attributed this to the military's team atmosphere. He wondered if new immigrants would benefit from a community service requirement working for an organization such as the Red Cross or doing disaster relief working alongside other immigrants and American citizens.
Bragaw responded by noting that research on community service indicates "an increased desire for civic participation."
Ron Unz wondered if the naturalization exam today wasn't in fact more rigorous than its predecessors, particularly those administered 100 years ago. Spiro responded by noting that the testing requirement was not put into place until 1952. Prior to that, he said, judges administered naturalization "as part of demonstrating or professing attachment to constitutional values," and would "sometimes engage in an interrogation of an understanding of the Constitution." Arguing that citizenship "prospered in the period before a formal testing requirement was imposed," he offered that in history one finds a compelling argument against having a test at all.
Duke University's Noah Pickus claimed that the absence of the institutions that traditionally helped in bridging the chasm between newcomers and American citizens argued for the strengthening and continuation of the naturalization exam. He took issue with Sailer's recommendation of compulsory civic service for immigrants. Because so many immigrants work multiple jobs and are deeply committed to rearing their children, he wondered about the practicality of that proposal. He noted, too, that the Jordan Commission failed to identify naturalization and "Americanization" as a "major item" among its recommendations. The failure by the U.S. government to "pony up" resources for this process, he said, is very telling.
Sailer offered that with "several hundred million people" wanting to immigrate to the United States, "it's a seller's market for us," and "we should run our immigration policy [with regard to] what's in the best interest of the general welfare of our current citizens." Immigration, he said, is not "some sort of civil right" for the foreign born, meant to be "convenient or non-imposing." Renshon echoed this immigration-in-the-national-interest sentiment.
Mark Krikorian suggested that in addition to questions on civics and history, a new and improved naturalization exam would feature questions addressing American culture. He argued that an immigrant's fluency with popular culture, for instance, "Who is Elvis?" would be indicative on some level of the immigrant's "engagement" with his new culture.
Finally, Michael Horowitz offered praise of the fruitfulness of the entire conference, and most particularly of the spirited but civil exchange among participants of distinctly differing viewpoints. "I've been to lot of conferences with some pretty emotional subjects," he said. "Somehow you've managed to draw together a group of people who know the subject and maintain an extraordinary measure of civility at the same time. I've seldom been as worked up about a subject and liked the people on the other side of the debate as much, and that's really quite wonderful."
Back to Cantigny Home
Topics: Canada