NationStates Jolt Archive

Turns out that immigrants will now have to swear an oath to the Queen because...er...it will make them have a common ground with the natives who aren't bound by any feudal oath...

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article201652.ece

Immigrants will swear allegiance to the Queen

The fourth shake-up of the immigration system in less than a decade, unveiled yesterday by the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, is designed to create a "shared sense of belonging and identity" between the host community and those who seek to migrate here.

to be honest this is crap, I demand that David Blunkett have his wages cut for not doing any work

course it doesn't end at an oath why they will now have: a pack on what being British is (I think I might need this), free language courses, strict rules so you can't marry British citizens, special cards, neighbors reporting them to the immigrant hotline, face and iris recognition

and lets not forget

Ministers of religion

To reduce the risk of dangerous extremism and cultural misunderstanding, the Government wants to discourage the recruitment of religious appointees who have not lived in Britain and "who may have very limited knowledge of British society and our fundamental values".

so is it time the Queen use her oath powers and give Blunkett a stern STFU?

Turns out that immigrants will now have to swear an oath to the Queen because...er...it will make them have a common ground with the natives who aren't bound by any feudal oath...


I'd rather swear to some form of democratic institution or legislation and its ideals, not an archaic monarchy and what that represents.

This is a rather strange idea. Strange and poorly thought through.

Published: 08 February 2002
I initially wondered how Blunkett could have got back in without me noticing! ;)

God Save Queen Elizabeth II, By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith!

What will swearing an oath on the queen do? Implanting tracking devices and wireless microphones into them would be much more effective.

This is a great idea! We in the U.S. need to get a queen immediately, I can really see this working.

Turns out that immigrants will now have to swear an oath to the Queen because...er...it will make them have a common ground with the natives who aren't bound by any feudal oath...

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article201652.ece

to be honest this is crap, I demand that David Blunkett have his wages cut for not doing any work

course it doesn't end at an oath why they will now have: a pack on what being British is (I think I might need this), free language courses, strict rules so you can't marry British citizens, special cards, neighbors reporting them to the immigrant hotline, face and iris recognition

and lets not forget

so is it time the Queen use her oath powers and give Blunkett a stern STFU?
ye gods! how do they dream this shit up? and how exactly do the bolded measures promote a "shared sense of belonging and identity" mr blunkett? fucking tool he is.

Everyone forget that swearing an oath to the Queen of England equates to God lightning bolting you if you break it.

I initially wondered how Blunkett could have got back in without me noticing! ;)

curse your eyesight! :p

-snip-

The first bit certainly sounds like a deranged, quasi-fascist pipe-dream, but I don't see the problem with the second bit. I for one don't want Wahhabi clerics coming into this country and recruiting vulnerable young people into their fundamentalist ideology.

The first bit certainly sounds like a deranged, quasi-fascist pipe-dream, but I don't see the problem with the second bit. I for one don't want Wahhabi clerics coming into this country and recruiting vulnerable young people into their fundamentalist ideology.

erm it talks about only letting people be religious appointees if they have lived in Britain, how exactly does this stop religious extremism?

God Save Queen Elizabeth II, By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith!

Screw that! I'm a Republican (in the English sense of the word, not the US one). :p

If we had a Constitution I'd happily swear allegiance to that.

not an archaic monarchy and what that represents.

Constitutional monarch? (shown to be the most reliable form of government so far)

curse your eyesight! :p
Bahaha! I already wear glasses!

*Is immune to Call To Power's curse*

erm it talks about only letting people be religious appointees if they have lived in Britain, how exactly does this stop religious extremism?

Most Wahhabi clerics come from Saudi Arabia where they're trained. Sure, this law won't catch all of them but it'll stop the majority.

Most Wahhabi clerics come from Saudi Arabia where they're trained. Sure, this law won't catch all of them but it'll stop the majority.

erm...it only states that they have to have lived in the UK for X amount of years (because apparently we assimilate all who oppose us!), either way its still a gross violation of every freedom of religion we have (course having hate speech laws and a state religion might be indicators)

Constitutional monarch? (shown to be the most reliable form of government)
I'd hardly call our government and constitution reliable. I think it's a right old mess, and needs sorting out, monarchy or republic. Personally, I think the republics of modern Germany, Switzerland, Ireland and France have proven to be as reliable as the monarchies of the UK, the Netherlands and Scandinavia.

I'd hardly call our government and constitution reliable.

We don't have a constitution. However, it's not the system that is crap, it's labour.

What happened to you Britain...You used to be cool...:p

We don't have a constitution.
I know, but it's just easier to say constitution than "the ancient customs, traditions, common law and modern statutes that make up British constitutional law." I'm pretty sure you know what I meant.

However, it's not the system that is crap, it's labour.
And I'd say the system's crap if it's so open to abuse or misuse by one party or government, even if it's not the fault of the system itself. There needs to be far stringent measures in place to prevent government meddling in constitutional affairs, including a written constitution.

I know, but it's just easier to say constitution than "the ancient customs, traditions, common law and modern statutes that make up British constitutional law." I'm pretty sure you know what I meant.


Ok


And I'd say the system's crap if it's so open to abuse or misuse by one party or government, even if it's not the fault of the system itself. There needs to be far stringent measures in place to prevent government meddling in constitutional affairs, including a written constitution.

I think generally a republic is more open to abuse, I could give examples but i'm to lazy. I would agree with you possibly that a constitution would fix many of the problems of the system.

I think generally a republic is more open to abuse, I could give examples but i'm to lazy. I would agree with you possibly that a constitution would fix many of the problems of the system.
I think it is more likely to depend on the type of republic in question - whether the laws and constitution provide adequate checks and balances on power - and the political culture of the country in question, rather than a monarchy v. republic thing. I don't see the UK and the Netherlands being less corrupt than Ireland or Germany purely because they/we have a hereditary head of state.

In what way do you think a republic is more open to abuse, by the way? Is it in terms of say corruption, government meddling in constitutional affairs to keep itself in power, or something else? I'm not asking this to make a point, more out of curiosity.

Constitutional monarch? (shown to be the most reliable form of government so far)

I'd rather not swear to an individual who is only in power and a monarch based on their birth.

Not in the 21st century thank you very much. I feel we're more enlightened than that. I prefer my leaders to be elected. Other countries seem to do fine without the need for a monarch, constitutional or otherwise.

...wait... people in the UK didn't have to swear an oath to the queen until just now...?!

Canadian immigrants have had to say one of those to get citizenship for a while now. I don't know if it's always been that way, but it's been that way for a while at least.

Am I the only one who likes the idea? Britain already has thousands of CCTV cameras and a damn effective police force, yet all of that can be strengthened if they know that Big Sister is watching those CCTV cameras.

I swear to President Bush to be a super/ultra/mega true as hell American and never to think of my immigrant ways again and to be denied all of my civil rights at the drop of a hat because I am an immigrant....

Can't see it working in the USA, England or anywhere else.

I'd hardly call our government and constitution reliable. I think it's a right old mess, and needs sorting out... <snip>
Hear Hear.

Two large groups of overpaid, poorly informed people waving sheafs of paper at each other and shouting 'Booooo!' at each other across the room whilst those on their front benches trade schoolyard insults and attempt to score petty PR points is no way to run a country.

(and no, I don't have a flawless replacement system to neatly slot into place, either)

I'd hardly call our government and constitution reliable. I think it's a right old mess, and needs sorting out, monarchy or republic. Personally, I think the republics of modern Germany, Switzerland, Ireland and France have proven to be as reliable as the monarchies of the UK, the Netherlands and Scandinavia.

Switzerland seems to be more of a direct democracy than a republic, in my opinion (although I guess you could argue that it has the underpinnings of a Republican system).

Two large groups of overpaid, poorly informed people waving sheafs of paper at each other and shouting 'Booooo!' at each other across the room whilst those on their front benches trade schoolyard insults and attempt to score petty PR points is no way to run a country.

Sounds highly entertaining, though. :)

...wait... people in the UK didn't have to swear an oath to the queen until just now...?!

Canadian immigrants have had to say one of those to get citizenship for a while now. I don't know if it's always been that way, but it's been that way for a while at least.

That's what I always thought too. I knew an immigrant to Australia who had to take some kind of oath.