PDA

View Full Version : How would you score on an immigration test?


Nightwish
06-12-2006, 04:18 PM
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm

Here's a sample of the questions asked on the INS immigration test. How would you do if you were to take it right now?

I scored a 95. Here are the five I missed:

How many amendments are there to the Constitution? I said 28, but it's 27.

How many representatives are there in Congress? I said 452, but it's 435.

Can you name the original 13 states (colonies)? I left out Rhode Island, and incorrectly included Vermont.

What is the INS form used to apply to become a naturalized citizen? Honestly, unless you've gone through the process, or work for the INS, who's going to know that one? It's Form N-400.

In what year was the Constitution written? I said 1782, but it's 1787.

How did you score?

PS - but for a recent conversation in DC, I probably would have missed the one about who takes over if the President and Vice President die. I had previously thought it was the Secretary of State.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 04:22 PM
Thanks for the answers. I'll take the test now of course.

Nightwish
06-12-2006, 04:23 PM
Thanks for the answers. I'll take the test now of course.
Don't worry, there are 95 other questions.

Donger
06-12-2006, 04:33 PM
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm#33

Here's a sample of the questions asked on the INS immigration test. How would you do if you were to take it right now?

I scored a 95. Here are the five I missed:

How many amendments are there to the Constitution? I said 28, but it's 27.

How many representatives are there in Congress? I said 452, but it's 435.

Can you name the original 13 states (colonies)? I left out Rhode Island, and incorrectly included Vermont.

What is the INS form used to apply to become a naturalized citizen? Honestly, unless you've gone through the process, or work for the INS, who's going to know that one? It's Form N-400.

In what year was the Constitution written? I said 1782, but it's 1787.

How did you score?

PS - but for a recent conversation in DC, I probably would have missed the one about who takes over if the President and Vice President die. I had previously thought it was the Secretary of State.

I aced it when I took in real life. I'd probably score in the mid-90s now.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 04:44 PM
Don't worry, there are 95 other questions.
:LOL:

To be honest I would have gotten the same ones wrong too, but taken a guess at that date and may have gotten it. Don't know.

But #78 is wrong. We have a Republican form of govt.
Not as in the party but as in a "Republic".
This is a common misconception but an important distinction, imo.

#87 is an opinion

Donger
06-12-2006, 04:47 PM
:LOL:

To be honest I would have gotten the same ones wrong too, but taken a guess at that date and may have gotten it. Don't know.

But #78 is wrong. We have a Republican form of govt.
Not as in the party but as in a "Republic".
This is a common misconception but an important distinction, imo.

#87 is an opinion

Heh. They must have changed 78. IIRC, the correct answer then was "representative republic."

On 87, they used to allow a selection of answers.

HC_Chief
06-12-2006, 04:48 PM
Cracks me up that the answer to many of these questions is contained in the following question!

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 04:48 PM
Heh. They must have changed 78. IIRC, the correct answer than was "representative republic."

On 87, they used to allow a selection of answers.

Both those would make it even more accurate, particularly #78.

Donger
06-12-2006, 04:52 PM
Both those would make it even more accurate, particularly #78.

Yeah, I remember that one distinctly because my mother kept answering "a democracy!" when she was studying for it.

I remember my father yelling, "Jezuzz Christ woman! Are you f*cking dense!!?" and her giggling.

sedated
06-12-2006, 04:52 PM
I probably would have missed the one about who takes over if the President and Vice President die. I had previously thought it was the Secretary of State.

Speaker of the House?

Donger
06-12-2006, 04:53 PM
Cracks me up that the answer to many of these questions is contained in the following question!

Yes, that hasn't changed at all. One of my dumbass brothers missed the July 4th question, both times.

Donger
06-12-2006, 04:54 PM
Speaker of the House?

Yes.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 04:54 PM
Speaker of the House?
Yes.

sedated
06-12-2006, 04:56 PM
damn foreigners!

dey took our jobs!

Cochise
06-12-2006, 04:56 PM
I don't really fault anyone who fails this... if they have an American public school education.

HC_Chief
06-12-2006, 05:13 PM
damn foreigners!

dey took our jobs!

deterkerjbs!!!!!!!

Nightwish
06-12-2006, 05:16 PM
:LOL:

To be honest I would have gotten the same ones wrong too, but taken a guess at that date and may have gotten it. Don't know.

But #78 is wrong. We have a Republican form of govt.
Not as in the party but as in a "Republic".
This is a common misconception but an important distinction, imo.

#87 is an opinion
I thought the same thing, too, although I still answered "Democracy" and "Right to Vote," but only because those are the common answers usually given, and I expected that's what the INS would expect to hear.

PS: oops, it looks like I accidentally linked to the answer page rather than the question page. I'll go back and fix it.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 05:23 PM
The most important right to me first is my right to life. All other rights are contingent on that as a first...so it's most important. Then liberty, right to property then voting. But that's me.

penguinz
06-12-2006, 05:23 PM
poop

StcChief
06-12-2006, 07:08 PM
I'm not immigrating so there.

Passed it to get out H.S. too long ago.

Adept Havelock
06-12-2006, 07:10 PM
I don't really fault anyone who fails this... if they have an American public school education.
I do. That's what libraries and self-directed study are for. :harumph:

Adept Havelock
06-12-2006, 07:37 PM
I only scored a 97 :cuss:
The most important right to me first is my right to life. All other rights are contingent on that as a first...so it's most important. Then liberty, right to property then voting. But that's me.I'd have to switch that order. A life without liberty is pointless to me, thus it takes precedence over all others. While I am admittedly fond of the ideal, in practice I've always found the notion of "inalienable" rights a bit strange, and possibly naive. Allow me to offer a quote that might (generally speaking) illustrate my position on 'inalienable rights'.
"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable' rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to 'buy' liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must always be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is the least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

The third 'right'?-The 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives-but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it"I also think there is something to be said for his notion that our society is at grave risk for the glorification of this 'mythology of rights' while we have also lost track of our duties. :shrug:

ChiefsfaninPA
06-12-2006, 08:13 PM
Damn with my score (78) I hope the INS doesn't come knocking looking to deport me.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 08:20 PM
I only scored a 97 :cuss:
I'd have to switch that order. A life without liberty is pointless to me, thus it takes precedence over all others. While I am admittedly fond of the ideal, in practice I've always found the notion of "inalienable" rights a bit strange, and possibly naive. Allow me to offer a quote that might (generally speaking) illustrate my position on 'inalienable rights'.I also think there is something to be said for his notion that our society is at grave risk for the glorification of this 'mythology of rights' while we have also lost track of our duties. :shrug:
Well you can't have liberty unless you're alive...but I see your point.
I don't agree with what I'd call all these additional rights that are added today such as freedom from want or fear...but fundamental ones yes I do. I'm gonna have to go with the founders more than Heinlein. And as to what rights are, a really thorough dictionary read on this word is a real eye opener especially for the modern mind.

Duties? As in to the state? Such as?

I think if each of use took full responsibility for our lives, that in itself would be enough duty as it would unburden the govt.

Adept Havelock
06-12-2006, 08:33 PM
Well you can't have liberty unless you're alive...but I see your point.
I don't agree with what I'd call all these additional rights that are added today such as freedom from want or fear...but fundamental ones yes I do. I'm gonna have to go with the founders more than Heinlein. And as to what rights are, a really thorough dictionary read on this word is a real eye opener especially for the modern mind.

Duties? As in to the state? Such as?

I think if each of use took full responsibility for our lives, that in itself would be enough duty as it would unburden the govt.

As I take issue with the notion of any right being "inalienable", I'd also include want and fear. Nice goals for a civilization to reach for? Why not? "Rights?"...not a chance.

I agree with the founders in an ideal sense to a point, but as a practical matter the Bard from Butler expresses my view on the notion of anything being inalienable better than I ever could. Admittedly, it stems almost directly from my belief that man has no inherent moral sense whatsoever, that it is merely something that one aquires through socialization. But that's a far longer post than I can really spare time for right now, nor is anyone much interested, I expect. :shrug:

Duties to the state? Pretty simple in my view. Adherence to the social contract that is the basis for it, and taking care of ones self and other associated (i.e. family, and perhaps neighborhood) responsibilities. Defense of the state when attacked by another, etc.

In a perfect world, I'd be happy to live as a "rational anarchist" in a society of like-minded folks. As the world is, I'll content myself with a middleground between the extremes of anarchy and totalitarianism as we more or less have today.

Brock
06-12-2006, 08:46 PM
It says the US is a democracy? Awesome test.

ROFL

Adept Havelock
06-12-2006, 08:56 PM
In truth, #78 should state the US as a democratic republic (one with universal sufferage), as opposed to the classical Roman form of a republic(sufferage only for the noble classes).

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 09:30 PM
As I take issue with the notion of any right being "inalienable", I'd also include want and fear. Nice goals for a civilization to reach for? Why not? "Rights?"...not a chance.

I agree with the founders in an ideal sense to a point, but as a practical matter the Bard from Butler expresses my view on the notion of anything being inalienable better than I ever could. Admittedly, it stems almost directly from my belief that man has no inherent moral sense whatsoever, that it is merely something that one aquires through socialization. But that's a far longer post than I can really spare time for right now, nor is anyone much interested, I expect. :shrug:

Duties to the state? Pretty simple in my view. Adherence to the social contract that is the basis for it, and taking care of ones self and other associated (i.e. family, and perhaps neighborhood) responsibilities. Defense of the state when attacked by another, etc.

In a perfect world, I'd be happy to live as a "rational anarchist" in a society of like-minded folks. As the world is, I'll content myself with a middleground between the extremes of anarchy and totalitarianism as we more or less have today.

Well first off I am not an anarchist. I am right of center. But the original center has shifted too far left. That simply puts me closer to what was considered a balance by the founders. Give or take a few issues. Unfortunately today that is considered anarachist to some but it's really a relative idea based on where we've drifted as I see it.

Economics, free-market will correct and regulate itself for the most part, except in the eyes of progressives and liberals. Social issues do not necessarily as much.

I describe myself as a conservative with a libertarian streak. That's more gov't than a Randian anarchist. She mainly hailed free-market capitalism.

Defense of the state, care of self, family and local area I have no problems with. And one loses their priveleges/rights should they not perform them. I don't know if these are duties as much as responsibilities. Liberty is not possible in an irresponsible society.

What is this social contract that is the basis of the state?
Are you speaking in the sense of Rousseau's idea of a social contract?
Just curious.


Dunno if I buy America as a democratic republic though. The people do not make the laws. And they are also vertically checked with a written constitution just as much as the govt is horizontally checked by it.

Adept Havelock
06-12-2006, 09:40 PM
What is this social contract that is the basis of the state?
Are you speaking in the sense of Rousseau's idea of a social contract?
Just curious.

By "social contract" I simply refer to the agreed upon laws of a society (whether directly voted on or though democratically elected representatives).
I didn't figure you were a true Randite Anarchist. Personally, I can certainly see the appeal of a "Rational Anarchy". Much as I liked some of his ideas, I'm enough of a realist to realize that if old TJ had actually slipped his original ideas through, we'd be the biggest bananna republic in the world, with a revolution every generation or so.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 09:45 PM
TJ?

Adept Havelock
06-12-2006, 09:47 PM
TJ?

The sage of Monticello. ;)

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 10:10 PM
The sage of Monticello. ;)


Oh! I thought you were talking about Taco John and it did not make any sense to me at all! ROFL

Moooo
06-12-2006, 10:10 PM
I aced it when I took in real life. I'd probably score in the mid-90s now.

Are you an immigrant? If so, where are you originally from?

This test reminded me of my grandma. She was born in Finland and had to take the test somewhere around 1949. Nonetheless, I was talking to her about something regarding Abraham Lincoln about a year ago, and although she knew he was the president during the Civil War, that was the extent of it. She didn't know he was our 16th president or anything like that.

I was like, "How did you pass American Histor....ooooohhhh..."

Moooo

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 10:21 PM
By "social contract" I simply refer to the agreed upon laws of a society (whether directly voted on or though democratically elected representatives).
I didn't figure you were a true Randite Anarchist. Personally, I can certainly see the appeal of a "Rational Anarchy". Much as I liked some of his ideas, I'm enough of a realist to realize that if old TJ had actually slipped his original ideas through, we'd be the biggest bananna republic in the world, with a revolution every generation or so.


Now that I understand who you are referring to here. You seem to be more in Washington's camp then. I know you read a lot, and have on Washington, so I feel safe in assuming you are aware of the rows Hamilton and Jefferson had with one another that tore at Washington himself who loved both men? These rows were on the role of govt versus individual liberty as well as banking.

Personally, I feel that we would have ended up more like Europe...or even like Switzerland, on a grander scale, which grants a lot of autonomy to it's cantons. They have remained neutral in the world's conflicts except as mediators or humanitarians yet they are armed to the teeth. They have a citizen militia so their military can never be used on the people or turn on the people too. Those beautiful mountains have airplane hangers inside them, tanks and munitions.

I don't disagree though that using the idea of individual rights to destroy any group with no consideration for the right of that group to endure is not a good formula either. But then that's how democracies wind up...dead. That's why a republican model such as ours, with reps and the "chains of the constitution" was the best solution. The Framers were well versed in different forms of govt including democracies. Ours actually has some mix of monarchy, aristocracy, democracy in it but all bound and limited by law. The formula was intended to disperse power.