@ISIDEWITHQuestionsimmigrationStarted 9yrs agoActive 3 days ago

Should immigrants be required to pass a citizenship test to demonstrate a basic understanding of our country’s language, history, and government?

The American Civics test is an examination that all immigrants must pass to gain U.S. citizenship. The test asks 10 randomly selected questions which cover U.S. history, the constitution and government. In 2015 Arizona became the first state to require High School students to pass the test before they graduate.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  Liberalism

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 338 Liberalism voters.

57%
Yes
43%
No
43%
Yes
39%
No
13%
Yes, but it should only cover very basic and simple topics
4%
No, most citizens couldn’t even pass a citizenship test
1%
Yes, and it should test more than just a basic level of understanding

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 338 Liberalism voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 338 Liberalism voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Liberalism voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9WYCCC7from Missouri  answered…4mos4MO

Immigrants should only be required to prove they are not terrorists, communists, criminals, jihadist, etc.

 @9MFSLW5answered…9mos9MO

Yes, and only immigrants who can prove their Jewish ancestry should be allowed to obtain citienship and relocate to Israel.

 @96DZH98answered…2yrs2Y

too complicated

 @9458429answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, the test should be based around the values and way of life of the country, how it came to be founded, its struggles, adding onto that, a competence test in language and ability to live here.

 @8QV64H3answered…4yrs4Y

Not required, but encouraged to take a citizenship course

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Jon Stewart Begs Democrats To ‘Please Stop Trotting Out Chuck Schumer!'

Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.

▲  4817 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1wk1W

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies