Citizenship exam gets tougher

Washington Post/Houston Chronicle:

The Bush administration is considering proposals that would make it tougher for legal immigrants to gain U.S. citizenship.

The proposals being drafted by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, could nearly double application fees, toughen the required English and history exams, and ask probing questions about an applicant's past, such as "Who is your current wife's ex-husband?"

In an interview Thursday, a USCIS spokesman said the contemplated changes are necessary to pay increased administrative costs and to standardize an application that is subjective and varies across the country.

But immigration rights advocates say the changes would amount to a second wall, a potential barrier against legal immigration that is as formidable as the newly authorized southern border fence is supposed to be against illegal migrants.

Changes in the citizenship application process are being contemplated amid a contentious debate over whether the federal government should undertake a comprehensive reform of immigration policy that includes establishing a guest worker program, or just build a barrier along the Mexican border and adopt a get-tough policy toward illegal immigrants and companies that employ them.

...

The WaPo really blows it on describing the issues in the debate. The primary issue has always been about the rule of law when it comes to immigration. Either you are going to enforce the rule of law or you are going to change the law and avoid enforcement. The border barrier is about enforcing the law. That is a separate issue from what form immigration exams will take. Those who favor border enforcement first, believe that you will never solve the problem if you give incentives to break the law by giving away citizenship to those who break the law. As long as there is no significant consequence to breaking the law, people will keep on doing it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains

James Robbins: ... Bin Laden suggests that President Bush should allow Zarqawi’s body to be returned to his family in Jordan, but this is a matter that is up to the Jordanian government, which so far has not shown much interest in facilitating a homecoming. Bin Laden mocks King Abdullah II, calling him a Coalition minion, and asking “w hat scares you about Abu Musab after he’s dead? You know that his funeral, if allowed to happen, would be a huge funeral showing the extent of sympathy with the mujahedin.” A large crowd would definitely turn out, though most people would be on hand to demonstrate their anger and disgust. Last November’s hotel bombings in Amman , masterminded by Zarqawi, are still fresh in people’s memory, and mentioning them to Jordanians has the same visceral impact as memory of the 9/11 attacks does here. Jordan has adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards those who choose to mourn the country’s least favorite son, and four opposition members of parliament who paid con
Read more