« Ballplayer: manager should stop calling plays | Main | Victims of war, victims of bad choices »

Maybe they meant the seventh Commandment?

The New York Times editorializes against new naturalization tests for applicants for American citizenship. They're afraid, apparently, that the tests will be too difficult, which would be "unfair" to candidates. In a typical example of Timesian liberalism, the problem isn't with unqualified applicants, but with having standards and expecting people to live up with them:

While the bureau plans to design a new curriculum for the community-based organizations and agencies that help immigrants prepare for the test, the government will provide no money to make that process less onerous. That's unfortunate. There is already a tremendous shortage of English classes for foreign speakers, and the demand will certainly increase. Immigrants and their advocates are right to be concerned. A study published by the Urban Institute says that some 8 million people in the country are eligible to apply for citizenship now, 2.7 million in California alone. A chief reason they do not apply is difficulty with English.
In other words, it's not the responsibility of immigrants to learn what they need to in order to become citizens. It's not the responsibility of "their advocates" to teach them what they need in order to become citizens. It's the responsibility of "the government" -- meaning taxpayers, of course -- to make immigrants qualify for citizenship.

(Keep in mind, incidentally, that as a general rule, one has to have lived as a permanent resident in the US for at least five years before applying for citizenship. If someone can't be bothered to learn English in five years, who needs him?)

In a bizarre example of irony, the Times adds:

One typical question asks which amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to vote. Many natural-born Americans would be stumped on that one (it's the Seventh), but more than 90 percent of the applicants pass the current exam.
For those of you who, like the New York Times editors, failed social studies, the seventh amendment says,
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Ain't nothin' about voting in there, as you can see. Can we revoke the citizenship of the Times' editors?

(Hat tip: TW)


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Maybe they meant the seventh Commandment?:

» Sunday's New York Times Correction Today from Assume the Position
Tomorrow, if the NYT bothers to post a correction to today's editorial, it will be something like this: [Read More]

Comments (1)


Ain't nothin' about voting in there, as you can see. Can we revoke the citizenship of the Times' editors?

If only we could. The arrogance of the NY Times editors is legend. My favorite example is when they stated that rockets couldn’t fly in space because they would have nothing to push against. Actually I shouldn’t be too hard on them. They were just a little confused. They thought that Newton’s third law of motion had been repealed.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 24, 2004 2:40 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Ballplayer: manager should stop calling plays.

The next post in this blog is Victims of war, victims of bad choices.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.31