Is the US Citizenship Test Pukka? And if so, how is our journalism?

During my citizenship test in January, both my interviewer and I got one of the seven questions I was asked wrong - the difference was, I still think the answer I gave was technically 'right.'

It certainly threw into my head the notion that those quizzing me about the fundamentals of American government weren't necessarily all that informed about it themselves - and I wasn't exactly shy communicating that perception!

Which is perhaps why Sarah Marie Anderson - secretary of the El Paso County Republican Party and one of the most brilliant women I know - was inspired to ask me my opinion on a recent article in Slate - "The Problem With Question 36: Why are so many of the answers on the U.S. citizenship test wrong?"

In the article, Candandian-turned-American Dafna Linzer recounts her experiences during her citizenship exam; and questions the veracity of the answers potential Americans are expected to give:

"Citizenship all came down to a test. I passed - you could, too, if you don't mind providing answers that you know are wrong."

All very well - until you started peering into the pedantic nature of her argument.

The first 'incorrect' answer she cited was Question 36 - Name Two Members of the President's Cabinet. According to the answer book all potential citizens receive, one of the many correct answers you could give was: The Vice President.

Dafna argues:

The vice president is a cabinet-level officer but he's not a Cabinet member. Cabinet members are unelected heads of executive departments, such as the Defense Department, or the State Department. The official naturalization test booklet even hints as much: "The president may appoint other government officials to the cabinet but no elected official may serve on the cabinet while in office." Note to Homeland Security: The vice president is elected.

Is one of the accepted answers to Question 36 wrong?

Not at all. For a start, Dafna's pedantic rule about 'no elected official' being able to serve on the cabinet shows a startling ignorance of fundamental constitutional law. The Vice President is elected to the Executive Branch of government - only elected members of the Legislative Branch are ineligible to take a cabinet post.

Secondly, while there are specific posts that make up 'The President's Cabinet', the role of a cabinet officer is not confined to just those jobs.

There are far more 'cabinet-level' members of the government than just the Vice President - and all of them are considered 'the Cabinet.' Ultimately, there are no explicit definition for the term 'Cabinet' in either the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations, which means what defines 'the Cabinet' is at the discretion of the sitting president; and for centuries, the defined scope of his cabinet has always included the Vice President.

Dafna's lack of comprehension of American government just gets worse from there. She then complained:

My immigration lawyer accompanied me to my interview. In the security line, I told her I was bothered by Question 16: Who makes the federal laws? Each of the three possible answers, it seemed, was incomplete. The official answers were: "Congress"; "Senate and House (of representatives)"; "(U.S. or national) legislature." Where, I wondered, was the president, whose signature is what makes a bill into a law?

For all of poor Dafna's diligent study, she seemed to have missed the first page of the naturalization booklet, which clearly defines the three branches of American government - Judiciary, Legislature and Executive.

The President is a member of the Executive Branch of government. The Legislature is the body that makes laws. They're two separate entities; and while the president has the authority to veto laws, he can't submit bills, directly add amendments or do anything to 'make' laws other than direct policy.

By the time I'd finished reading the article, I'd gone from cynically complaining about the US Naturalization questions to actively defending them.

I'll admit, there is some wiggle room in the scope of 'acceptable' answers you can give - but criticism on Dafna's scale is just poor journalism. Her article demonstrates how minute her understanding of American government is; and the fact that Slate was willing to publish it demonstrates a similar shortcoming on their part, too.

The Two Tiers of Immigration Law

I once got turned away from entering the United States due to a piddling VISA issue (which got sorted out and I'm now a happy - and lawful - permanent resident thank you very much.)

But because of that experience, I've kept a watchful gaze on the behaviour of other non-resident rogues and the attitude the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services has toward them.

And I have to admit, I've been disgusted. As far the Immigration people go, it seems they're willing to overlook just about anything as long as you're rich enough.

I mean, we've already had the likes of brawlers Naomi Campbell and Russell Crowe given the green light to come and go, despite very public arrests for violent attacks on innocent bystanders. Russell Crowe lobbed a telephone at a desk clerk - and Campbell tossed a more lady-like mobile at a personal assistant.

Crack addict Amy Winehouse - who was recently diagnosed with emphysema from all the drugs she's smoked - was snubbed by the VISA department originally, but then allowed in at a later date - despite being a publicly acknowledged drug addict, having drug possession charges on her record and being charged with perverting the course of justice in the case that landed her husband behind bars.

And singer turned DJ Boy George even managed to keep his green card despite inviting cops around to his apartment while stoned out of his bald little brain - and letting them discover cocaine there.

Fortunately, it seems like even the BCIS has a finite tolerance towards celebrity bullshit. Due to new charges arising from Boy George kidnapping and 'molesting' a male model in his London apartment, the BCIS have denied him a VISA to go on tour in the United States.

But there's hope for Boy George yet - and despair for the rest of us law abiding immigrants. The BCIS is likely to reconsider their decision when the trial comes up.

What REALLY annoyed me about this situation is the statement the US Embassy released when they announced their decision to bar Boy George from visiting America.

"This is not in respect of anything he has done in the past, but because he is facing a trial in November in London."

Two years ago, he was arrested for possessing cocaine! In Manhattan! Which clearly violates the 'John Lennon' law, stating that anything other than a charge of possessing one ounce or less of marijuana constitutes grounds for a lifetime ban.

If you look online, you'll see thousands of hopeful American immigrants have been permanently banned for less - like drink driving, lesser drug possession or getting into fights while in America.

Not that I'm advocating their behaviour. I just want the rules to be the same for everybody. Why do the BCIS hold regular, normal folk accountable for their actions, but give carte blanche to celebrities who do far worse?

Just for once, I'd like to see the likes of Boy George, Amy Winehouse and Naomi Campbell held to task for their actions and forced to serve as an example for the rest of the world.

Campbell is a [Insert word beginning with 'C' here...]

I am generally a loving and peaceful person who extends goodwill to all men (except people who change lanes without using their turn signals.)

However, there is one celebrity I utterly, utterly detest. Naomi Campbell.

The British 'supermodel' has been in the newspaper so many times for assault and abuse that it's not funny. From slapping personal assistants to lobbing mobile phones at people, she is the living embodiment of the 'utterly worthless celebrity diva' stereotype.

Now she's done it again - brawling with police at Heathrow Airport. Apparently she was yelling insults at the captain of her British Airlines flight (including baselessly accusing him of being a racist) and then assaulting the three police officers who came to escort her off the flight.

Blissfully, a court has found her guilty as charged! The destructive diva faces six months in jail and a £5,000 fine.

I'd prefer it if she was forced to suffer the consequences of her actions - and lost her VISA to work in the United States. That's what would happen to a regular person charged with these crimes. Unfortunately, Campbell - like other celebrity brawler Russell Crowe - will use her money and influence to remind people that the benefit of fame and fortune is not having to abide by the same rules as the rest of us.

In the mean time, I'll be waiting to hear what she gets sentenced with. I think some time in jail would teach this waste-of-oxygen a valuable lesson - and spare the rest of us from her detestable presence.