7 ms·

Immigrants are required to possess a modicum of knowledge about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the system of government, not to mention

Immigrants are required to possess a modicum of knowledge about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the system of government, not to mention some level of command of the English language (my wife teaches citizenship courses to immigrants). I, myself, am a naturalized citizen, from Canada, and I had to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, forbear allegiance to foreign powers etc. It's a ritual, but rituals have meaning and power. It would be nice to see more native-born Americans with a strong grounding in democracy and electoral politics. When we had a mandatory military draft, at that time most able bodied young men were required to put on a uniform, salute the U.S. flag, march to patriotic music, etc. Today this sounds trite and even anti-democracy -- weren't we indoctrinating generations of gullible young people to just blindly follow the leader? Yet, today, many young people including college graduates are hardly patriotic at all, and are mind-numbingly ignorant of even the most basic facts, as illustrated by man-in-the-street interviews posted on Youtube by wags like Ami Horowitz and Mark Dice, getting college students to admit that the triceratops (an extinct dinosaur) is endangered and trophy hunting of this poor beast should be banned, and similar ridiculous notions. Even during the Vietnam War, one survey in about 1970 found that 25% of Americans thought Vietnam was in South America. Education is the key, and by that I believe you and I both agree that indoctrination in particular directions is not the same thing. My kid in high school... well, I could tell you stories, but I'd better stop :)

viridian 6y ago
I tend to agree actually, and would go a step further and suggest that citizenship should be a requirement to vote in any election, and that persons born in the US should not be granted citizenship without being able to pass the citizenship test. I'm less comfortable granting people a bid based on general knowledge and intelligence though, I think the uninterested citizenry is a far larger problem than the uneducated citizenry.
- wry_discontent 6y ago
  I agree uninterested citizenry is a bigger problem than uneducated, but what about a citizenship test (which is absolutely, without a doubt, going to be immediately used as a disenfranchisement tool by a particular political party) is going to get people interested? It seems like that'd fix absolutely nothing but create further class distinctions between people who are represented and people who aren't. In fact, I'd prefer to see things go radically in the opposite direction. I think it's unjust to prevent non-citizens from voting. If you live in place x, you should have a say in how place x is run.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    We can do it that way. You just end up with many of the same issues we see today being exacerbated further, like rule of law not being followed and a lack of understanding about the legal structure. The point of citizenship distinction is part of organizing a democratic government and maintaining cohesion. It tests a person on the basic form and laws of the government and their allegiance to the tribe. The point here is that you have a group off like-minded people allowing other like-minded people into the group. This creates a cohesive group that agrees on basic principles and can function well. Think about trying to conduct a system architecture design meeting with the non-technical users weighing in through a democratic vote on each suggestion - are you excited to do your job in that scenario? Do you end up with lemmings following the best salesman without understanding what is going on? (Different opinions are fine as long as they are legitimate and don't violate the common principles) Letting anyone in makes the knowledgeable people feel disenfranchised by mob rule, not to mention making the organization susceptible to subversion. There's anecdotal evidence (probably statistical evidence if we look around) to support that citizenship that is earned results in a population that is more involved (look at voter turnout in places that never before had free elections). So while I agree that people in a given location should have say over their government, I also believe that in being a part of that democratic government they have the responsibility to learn the basics by which the government functions. This minimum requirement at least shows a good faith effort on the part of the individual to be a diligent member of society.
    - wool_gather 6y ago
      You make good points, though I'm sympathetic to the parent's point too. In the very layered federal system we have in the US, it might be possible for us to have it both ways. Non-U.S.-citizens could be given a vote in local/municipal/county matters, but still not for national representation. (And some states might want to try out different levels of statewide enfranchisement.)
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Yeah, I thought a municipality or state was allowing non-citizen voting for the local elections. I think parts of MD and CA.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  The problem with this is that you find yourself in a position where you're adding educational access as a means to manipulate the voting base. Want to disenfranchise people (as an example) from rural areas in your state over the long run? Funnel education funding away from school buses and into schools that offer wide varieties of academic programs (that can only be offered in large schools). Before you say "that would never happen", the US has a long history of using literacy tests to disenfranchise voters, including many cases where those tests were applied unevenly or administered in ways that were openly discriminatory. [0] [0] https://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm https://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm
  - giantg2 6y ago
    All you really to do to fix that is have the ammendment require the test study material (small book) be provided via mail upon request. Or some other means. If you have an ammendment that requires this, anyone targeted by manipulation can sue for their constitutional rights. Most of the past manipulations are attacks on older laws that were less specific and required judicial interpretation to determine applicability.
    - InitialLastName 6y ago
      Getting the study material in the mail doesn't help if your education system isn't equipped to teach people how to read (much less study the government). You might or might not have noticed, but the politically and economically disenfranchised are not well-known for their access to legal recourse.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        If illiteracy is a widespread issue, then there are bigger issues at play. Not to mention, do we really want people like that voting? After all, that would make one ineligible to perform other duties which require basic english proficiency required of citizens (military drafts, jury). Rights come with responsibilities. Lawyers would love to take a clear cut case on a contingent basis.
- KittenInABox 6y ago
  My concern with gating for votes in America is that America specifically has a very long history of gating voting in order to disenfranchise minorities from voting. We cannot trust our institutions not to use any restrictions to vote in a racist way. Without this, I can easily imagine a world where our existing disenfranchisement of minorities makes them uniquely vulnerable to being unable to acquire the education necessary to pass to citizenship test- and that this vulnerability is taken advantage of to cut them out of democracy altogether.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    If we can't trust our institutions, then what is the solution? There doesn't have to be much education to pass this test. A small book with the material could be mailed to each person on request with no charge. Crafting a strong ammendment with protections like this could address those concerns.
    - KittenInABox 6y ago
      This I don't particularly mind if a small book with the material is provided to each person on request with no charge, potentially even at the point of voting. The point after all is to ensure that maximum numbers of people participating are aware of the systems, not as a gating mechanism. I'm merely protesting the use of a gating mechanism in isolation. If the gating mechanism came with an educational booklet then my concerns evaporate.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Yeah, I think any law creating restrictions should also provide protections so it's not abused. For an example on another topic, gun rights groups want a punishment in the new red flag laws for people who file false red flag claims against others so that it can't be "weaponized", as restraining orders have increasingly been used as a "standard" part of divorce proceedings by some lawyers (in cases without any abuse). Seems to make sense, but like most laws it doesn't seem to get any legitimate debate because both sides are just passing laws on mostly partisan lines instead of investigating possible tweaks that would make both sides accepting (no empathy or devil's advocate).
wry_discontent 6y ago
Unpatriotic college grad here, I think you're missing the "most basic fact", that the government obviously doesn't work for you and me. What's the point of getting involved with all this political junk, spending my time on it, when they're all in it for themselves, for their donors? That's a real question that's totally legitimate for most people. They're busy, the issue isn't education, it's a totally corrupt system that works for the wealthy. Out of curiosity, how do you feel about non-electoral politics? I've found that sort of engagement is much easier to get traction for from normal people. It's easy to see the effects of your actions.
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  But the government is supposed to work for you and me, at least indirectly. Mind you, if you get stopped for speeding and you say to the cop "Do you realize I'm paying your salary?" he's going to find 10 things wrong with your vehicle that you didn't know existed (a cop friend told me this years ago). But getting back to the main point, it is our government and we can take it back. It takes hard work and dedicated involvement, though. Years ago, a bunch of reform minded Boomers moved into a dying neighborhood in north Boston (a city known for its corruption over many decades). They were well educated, affluent, and politically active. They banded together, went to meetings, made their voices heard, and after a time, city politicos became more responsive to them. They showed how democracy can work, if one puts in the time. Once you own some property and raise a family, you will probably find that you need to become involved in local government to get what you need from it, as have millions of others.
- giantg2 6y ago
  That disinterest is part of what drives the issue of poor electoral choices. The most radical candidates can draw the most support in primaries since the voter turnout is so low. I also feel the disenfranchisement that you talk about. I think non-electoral civic engagement is also an important part. I try to write my representatives on some issues. It seems largely futile, but often times you get a more detailed response from them than you see I'm the media. I also try to right the wrongs I encounter in my community. For example, a police department was wrongly stating that a specific summary offense was a misdemeanor and I was able to correct that. I also encountered a state trooper that was doing things that violate civil rights, like lying to a judge. I filed a complaint and he was counseled (should have been fired but the investigator covered for him - only so far up the chain you can chase corruption before your life/safety becomes a concern).

viridian 6y ago

I tend to agree actually, and would go a step further and suggest that citizenship should be a requirement to vote in any election, and that persons born in the US should not be granted citizenship without being able to pass the citizenship test. I'm less comfortable granting people a bid based on general knowledge and intelligence though, I think the uninterested citizenry is a far larger problem than the uneducated citizenry.

wry_discontent 6y ago
I agree uninterested citizenry is a bigger problem than uneducated, but what about a citizenship test (which is absolutely, without a doubt, going to be immediately used as a disenfranchisement tool by a particular political party) is going to get people interested? It seems like that'd fix absolutely nothing but create further class distinctions between people who are represented and people who aren't. In fact, I'd prefer to see things go radically in the opposite direction. I think it's unjust to prevent non-citizens from voting. If you live in place x, you should have a say in how place x is run.
- giantg2 6y ago
  We can do it that way. You just end up with many of the same issues we see today being exacerbated further, like rule of law not being followed and a lack of understanding about the legal structure. The point of citizenship distinction is part of organizing a democratic government and maintaining cohesion. It tests a person on the basic form and laws of the government and their allegiance to the tribe. The point here is that you have a group off like-minded people allowing other like-minded people into the group. This creates a cohesive group that agrees on basic principles and can function well. Think about trying to conduct a system architecture design meeting with the non-technical users weighing in through a democratic vote on each suggestion - are you excited to do your job in that scenario? Do you end up with lemmings following the best salesman without understanding what is going on? (Different opinions are fine as long as they are legitimate and don't violate the common principles) Letting anyone in makes the knowledgeable people feel disenfranchised by mob rule, not to mention making the organization susceptible to subversion. There's anecdotal evidence (probably statistical evidence if we look around) to support that citizenship that is earned results in a population that is more involved (look at voter turnout in places that never before had free elections). So while I agree that people in a given location should have say over their government, I also believe that in being a part of that democratic government they have the responsibility to learn the basics by which the government functions. This minimum requirement at least shows a good faith effort on the part of the individual to be a diligent member of society.
  - wool_gather 6y ago
    You make good points, though I'm sympathetic to the parent's point too. In the very layered federal system we have in the US, it might be possible for us to have it both ways. Non-U.S.-citizens could be given a vote in local/municipal/county matters, but still not for national representation. (And some states might want to try out different levels of statewide enfranchisement.)
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Yeah, I thought a municipality or state was allowing non-citizen voting for the local elections. I think parts of MD and CA.
InitialLastName 6y ago
The problem with this is that you find yourself in a position where you're adding educational access as a means to manipulate the voting base. Want to disenfranchise people (as an example) from rural areas in your state over the long run? Funnel education funding away from school buses and into schools that offer wide varieties of academic programs (that can only be offered in large schools). Before you say "that would never happen", the US has a long history of using literacy tests to disenfranchise voters, including many cases where those tests were applied unevenly or administered in ways that were openly discriminatory. [0] [0] https://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm https://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm
- giantg2 6y ago
  All you really to do to fix that is have the ammendment require the test study material (small book) be provided via mail upon request. Or some other means. If you have an ammendment that requires this, anyone targeted by manipulation can sue for their constitutional rights. Most of the past manipulations are attacks on older laws that were less specific and required judicial interpretation to determine applicability.
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    Getting the study material in the mail doesn't help if your education system isn't equipped to teach people how to read (much less study the government). You might or might not have noticed, but the politically and economically disenfranchised are not well-known for their access to legal recourse.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      If illiteracy is a widespread issue, then there are bigger issues at play. Not to mention, do we really want people like that voting? After all, that would make one ineligible to perform other duties which require basic english proficiency required of citizens (military drafts, jury). Rights come with responsibilities. Lawyers would love to take a clear cut case on a contingent basis.
KittenInABox 6y ago
My concern with gating for votes in America is that America specifically has a very long history of gating voting in order to disenfranchise minorities from voting. We cannot trust our institutions not to use any restrictions to vote in a racist way. Without this, I can easily imagine a world where our existing disenfranchisement of minorities makes them uniquely vulnerable to being unable to acquire the education necessary to pass to citizenship test- and that this vulnerability is taken advantage of to cut them out of democracy altogether.
- giantg2 6y ago
  If we can't trust our institutions, then what is the solution? There doesn't have to be much education to pass this test. A small book with the material could be mailed to each person on request with no charge. Crafting a strong ammendment with protections like this could address those concerns.
  - KittenInABox 6y ago
    This I don't particularly mind if a small book with the material is provided to each person on request with no charge, potentially even at the point of voting. The point after all is to ensure that maximum numbers of people participating are aware of the systems, not as a gating mechanism. I'm merely protesting the use of a gating mechanism in isolation. If the gating mechanism came with an educational booklet then my concerns evaporate.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Yeah, I think any law creating restrictions should also provide protections so it's not abused. For an example on another topic, gun rights groups want a punishment in the new red flag laws for people who file false red flag claims against others so that it can't be "weaponized", as restraining orders have increasingly been used as a "standard" part of divorce proceedings by some lawyers (in cases without any abuse). Seems to make sense, but like most laws it doesn't seem to get any legitimate debate because both sides are just passing laws on mostly partisan lines instead of investigating possible tweaks that would make both sides accepting (no empathy or devil's advocate).

wry_discontent 6y ago

Unpatriotic college grad here, I think you're missing the "most basic fact", that the government obviously doesn't work for you and me. What's the point of getting involved with all this political junk, spending my time on it, when they're all in it for themselves, for their donors? That's a real question that's totally legitimate for most people. They're busy, the issue isn't education, it's a totally corrupt system that works for the wealthy. Out of curiosity, how do you feel about non-electoral politics? I've found that sort of engagement is much easier to get traction for from normal people. It's easy to see the effects of your actions.

blisterpeanuts 6y ago
But the government is supposed to work for you and me, at least indirectly. Mind you, if you get stopped for speeding and you say to the cop "Do you realize I'm paying your salary?" he's going to find 10 things wrong with your vehicle that you didn't know existed (a cop friend told me this years ago). But getting back to the main point, it is our government and we can take it back. It takes hard work and dedicated involvement, though. Years ago, a bunch of reform minded Boomers moved into a dying neighborhood in north Boston (a city known for its corruption over many decades). They were well educated, affluent, and politically active. They banded together, went to meetings, made their voices heard, and after a time, city politicos became more responsive to them. They showed how democracy can work, if one puts in the time. Once you own some property and raise a family, you will probably find that you need to become involved in local government to get what you need from it, as have millions of others.
giantg2 6y ago
That disinterest is part of what drives the issue of poor electoral choices. The most radical candidates can draw the most support in primaries since the voter turnout is so low. I also feel the disenfranchisement that you talk about. I think non-electoral civic engagement is also an important part. I try to write my representatives on some issues. It seems largely futile, but often times you get a more detailed response from them than you see I'm the media. I also try to right the wrongs I encounter in my community. For example, a police department was wrongly stating that a specific summary offense was a misdemeanor and I was able to correct that. I also encountered a state trooper that was doing things that violate civil rights, like lying to a judge. I filed a complaint and he was counseled (should have been fired but the investigator covered for him - only so far up the chain you can chase corruption before your life/safety becomes a concern).