As IA Rosbalt writes, the very fact that new questions were being developed was kept secret for long months — the best minds of Berlin's Humboldt University composed and rewrote them as if they were preparing not a citizenship test but at least an entrance exam for the Sorbonne. In the end, 310 questions appeared on the Interior Ministry's website, and it turned out that the mountain had given birth to a mouse.
For example, in the additional questionnaire for foreigners intending to settle in the federal state of Lower Saxony, one of the questions reads: "Where in Lower Saxony can you get information on political topics?" The answer options proposed by the academic developers include the following sources of political information: the State Center for Political Education (Landeszentrale fur politische Bildung), the local law enforcement office (Ordnungsamt), the consumer protection agency, and the church.
Despite the fact that the correct answers have not yet been officially published, people with even minimal logical abilities can already determine, at least by consonance, that the correct answer is the State Center for Political Education. The problem, however, is that in the federal state of Lower Saxony, this center was abolished as of December 31, 2004. Thus, the only logical answer turns out to be incorrect, as do all the other options.
Such an oversight could have occurred for two reasons. First, the head of the federal Interior Ministry, Wolfgang Schäuble, was so secretive that he did not show the questionnaire even to his colleagues — the state interior ministers — until the very last moment, so Lower Saxony had no chance to intervene and correct it. Second, the question about "information on political topics" appears in the supplementary questionnaires for all federal states. That is, the developers did not even attempt to delve into the specifics of local legislation, such as that of Lower Saxony.
There are also two more questions that have caused, to put it mildly, bewilderment. The compilers' attempt to fit the complex legal system operating in Germany into the framework of a simply formulated question has led to at least ambiguity. For instance, one question reads: "Whom in Germany must you let into your apartment upon demand?" The correct answer is considered to be: the landlord. In reality, no such general rule exists — to enter a rented apartment, the owner or their representative must, first, justify their desire, and second, agree with the tenant on a visit time suitable for both parties. Otherwise, it would be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy.
Another question reads: "What does a lay judge do in Germany?" According to the compilers of the questionnaire, the correct answer is: "Together with the judge, he determines the extent of punishment for a crime." If you look into it, even this answer is not entirely accurate. First, the lay judge is themselves a judge, albeit an honorary one. Second, their task is not so much to determine the punishment as to monitor the entire court proceedings as a fully equal member of the court. This ensures the impartiality of judges and the correctness of their decisions.
Both of these blunders were exactly what lawyer and judge Thomas Dunker from Halle discovered. "Such questions must in any case be rephrased," he believes. "If they remain in the questionnaire in their current form, one can expect a mass of long and fascinating court cases."
Of course, one can laugh at the clumsy questions composed by the best scholars in Germany and then forget about them. However, the fact remains: the procedure for obtaining citizenship in Germany has become considerably more complicated in recent years. This has deterred many applicants: since 2000, when citizenship legislation began to change, the number of applicants for a German passport has been steadily declining.
Official data released recently showed that in 2007, 113,000 people received German citizenship — almost 10% less than in 2006. For comparison, in 2000, nearly 187,000 people received German citizenship. And before the new law was adopted, an average of half a million immigrants received a German passport per year. Among these lucky ones last year, as usual, the largest group was Turks living in the country — almost a quarter of all new citizens. In second and third place were immigrants from Serbia and Montenegro, as well as Poland.
The number of Romanians receiving German citizenship increased quite noticeably, by 15%. The number of Iraqis becoming German citizens rose by 11%. At the same time, the number of those who received German citizenship as compensation for crimes of the Nazi regime decreased by 40%. This primarily applies to Jews forced to flee Hitler and their descendants. Despite the fact that an easier procedure for obtaining citizenship is provided for them, only three thousand people wanted to take advantage of this opportunity.
Minister Schäuble claims that the reason is not the tightening of legislation at all. "Among the foreigners currently living in Germany, the majority are citizens of other EU countries. Obtaining German citizenship, which costs a lot of money, brings them no benefit," he asserts.
The new citizenship law adopted in 2000 requires that the candidate has lived in Germany for at least 8 years, has no criminal record, and does not depend on any social benefits at the time of application. They must also renounce citizenship of any other country — this can be done not immediately, but after receiving a German passport: in Germany, with rare exceptions, dual citizenship is not recognized. In addition, in 2004, a German language proficiency test consisting of two exams — oral and written — was introduced for applicants.
So, no matter how much the minister denies it, the tightening of legislation really does have a very noticeable effect on the number of applicants for a German passport. However, sociological surveys conducted by several independent institutes showed that the absolute majority of German citizens (from 76% to 83%) support the introduction of new rules.