Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


US Citizenship Test

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muggie2 View Post
With respect to: "Who packed your luggage?" "Me." "Did you leave it unattended?" 'No."

It's so if you get caught with anything you shouldn't, you're in serious trouble. Either you packed it and you are then responsible for it which means you're in serious trouble, or you made a false declaration to the officer, and you're in trouble.
Either way, you're in trouble.
I like the question on the immigration form about espionage and sabotage. James Bond would have some explaining to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
The issue isn't one of swearing loyalty, but of forswearing loyalty.
Semantics. What matters aren't words on a test that isn't even binding, but policies on the ground. In the US even conservatives support immigration policies that would be mostly found in the European left. You can find plenty of evidence for american imperialism and nationalism in it's foreign relations, but trying to spin a question on a test as evidence for US jingoism is kinda far fetched.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bbender View Post
The only thing this test does is eliminate people who do not understand English or cannot read.
You can actually take the civics test in a different language, provided you qualify for the English language proficiency exemption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandersnatch View Post
Semantics.
No, that's not 'semantics'. That's a polar opposite. The difference between '1' and '-1' is not generally one of 'semantics', particularly when that term is employed in a derogatory context.

Yeah, I still don't think differentiating between polar opposites qualifies as 'nitpicking'.

Swearing loyalty to A means that you will support A. This still allows you to swear loyalties to B and support the both of them. Forswearing loyalty to A would mean that you will no longer support them, regardless of any vows that you have previously taken.

In essence saying "I'll support you" isn't exclusive so if you want undivided loyalty you need a clause to the effect of "I won't be loyal to anyone else either". It's like the first commandment.

Also if you do not swear loyalty to A but only forswear loyalty to not A that means you may not always support a but you aren't working for someone else working against A. So James Bond and Al Quaeda operatives would not be able to truthfully say they are forswearing their past allegiances unless they are quitting the relevant organizations...

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
Also if you do not swear loyalty to A but only forswear loyalty to not A that means you may not always support a but you aren't working for someone else working against A. So James Bond and Al Quaeda operatives would not be able to truthfully say they are forswearing their past allegiances unless they are quitting the relevant organizations...
Well, they could stay on in those organizations as 'double-agents', working within Organization A for the benefit of Organization B.

Quote:
Well, they could stay on in those organizations as 'double-agents', working within Organization A for the benefit of Organization B.
if they swear loyalty to B and forswear loyalty to A then they might do so, discussing iy with B, but if you forswear loyalty to A without swearing loyalty to B then that doesn't really fit or make sense.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status