NationStates Jolt Archive


Government proves once again out of touch with reality

Call to power
20-02-2008, 19:20
not that any of the opposing parties have anything to offer (I will avoid poking fun of them on the grounds that someone else can do it)

British citizenship tests planned

Immigrants who want to become British and settle permanently in the UK will need to pass more tests to "prove their worth" to the country under new plans.

Some migrants may also have to pay into a fund towards public services and have a period of "probationary citizenship".

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the UK should expect a "demonstration of commitment" and the process of becoming a citizen should be "more exacting".

The Tories called the plans, which do not cover EU citizens, a "gimmick".

Unveiling the proposals, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said future migrants would need to "earn" citizenship.

This scraps the current system which allows people to apply for naturalisation on the basis of how long they have lived in the UK.

Transitional fund'

Ms Smith said migrants from outside the European Economic Area would be encouraged to "move on" through a system that leads to citizenship - or choose ultimately to leave the country.

The package of measures includes:

* Raising visa fees for a special "transitional impact" fund

* More English language testing ahead of nationality

* Requirements to prove integration into communities

* Increasing how long it takes to become British

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7253933.stm

its odd how the UK government thinks that volunteering can make someone more British rather than less and the cheek of making immigrants pay more in taxes (odd how they have suddenly become second class citizens) shocks me

I guess this is what happens when your main voting population is a bunch of middle class (yeah course they are:p) moms with an oddly anti-immigrant stance (did you know the Polish eat children who don't eat all their greens!)
Mad hatters in jeans
20-02-2008, 19:28
Not gonna work.
Gonna make more bureaucracy.
Gonna make more poor people.
Gonna make the government look like it's doing something worthwile.
I'd say to the person who made this. "Gonnae no Dae that?"
Your Honour i rest my case.:)
Kryozerkia
20-02-2008, 19:30
Hey, hey, hey! There is nothing wrong with xenophobia against Poles.

What did that pole ever do to you besides hoist up your country's ungrateful flag?
Skaladora
20-02-2008, 19:32
What's so special about UK citizenship that would make people have to earn it?
Neo Art
20-02-2008, 19:32
By and large I can't see anything wrong with this as a general practice (depends on implimentation of course). If you want to become a citizen of a country (not just a resident, but a full fledged citizen) shouldn't you be required to demonstrate some loyalty, commitment, and integration into the society and country you claim to want to be a part of?

Residency is one thing, citizenship is entirely another. To be a citizen of a country is to be more than a guest, more than someone who just lives there. It's to be a part of that nation, with all the rights and privlidges that this entails. Shouldn't you be required, in some way, to demonstrate that you actually want to be part of that society?
Fassitude
20-02-2008, 19:35
(did you know the Polish eat children who don't eat all their greens!)

Hey, hey, hey! There is nothing wrong with xenophobia against Poles.
Longhaul
20-02-2008, 19:38
Meh, this is nothing more than a sop to placate those who have been wailing that "something must be done!".

I don't see that there's anything inherently wrong with requiring people to conform to some set of standards in order to gain citizenship. We'll just have to wait and see how it pans out, I guess.

I did laugh at the throwaway comment in that BBC report that the plans "do not cover EU citizens", though. I wonder how many of the people who spend their time bemoaning the level of immigration into the UK actually understand that exclusion.
Mad hatters in jeans
20-02-2008, 19:38
By and large I can't see anything wrong with this as a general practice (depends on implimentation of course). If you want to become a citizen of a country (not just a resident, but a full fledged citizen) shouldn't you be required to demonstrate some loyalty, commitment, and integration into the society and country you claim to want to be a part of?

Residency is one thing, citizenship is entirely another. To be a citizen of a country is to be more than a guest, more than someone who just lives there. It's to be a part of that nation, with all the rights and privlidges that this entails. Shouldn't you be required, in some way, to demonstrate that you actually want to be part of that society?

and what happens if you fail? You get sent back to the place you didn't want to be?
And what counts as society? A country, a city, a village?
So society decides if you're worthy to live there, is that what you're saying?
This is a bad idea, sure you need to be able to speak the language, and learn a bit of culture but there's loads of people in this country that don't know anything like some foriegn citizens, should they be moved out because they don't know enough about their country, i doubt it.

Just more posturing by the UK government to appease it's voters because it's got them all scared by Terrorism. Even though Poverty probably kills more people in this country than terrorism, some people are still more worked up about it.
Neo Art
20-02-2008, 19:43
and what happens if you fail? You get sent back to the place you didn't want to be?

You don't get your citizenship. That says nothing about not being allowed to stay there.

Remember, there's a big difference between "citizen" and "resident" This is a citizenship test, not a residency test.

So society decides if you're worthy to live there, is that what you're saying?

LIVE there? No.

Be a member of that society? Yeah, maybe. Again, we're talking CITIZENSHIP.

Not residency. There's a BIG difference between the two.


This is a bad idea, sure you need to be able to speak the language, and learn a bit of culture but there's loads of people in this country that don't know anything like some foriegn citizens, should they be moved out because they don't know enough about their country, i doubt it.

And I'm not talking about making anyone "move out" because they can't do that. I'm talking citizenship. Not residency.
Call to power
20-02-2008, 19:45
Not gonna work.
Gonna make more bureaucracy.
Gonna make more poor people.
Gonna make the government look like it's doing something worthwile.

all in a days work then :)

(apart from the government looking worthwhile that is)

What's so special about UK citizenship that would make people have to earn it?

the right to bitch and moan about lazy immigrants in the comfort of your own home :p

shouldn't you be required to demonstrate some loyalty, commitment, and integration into the society and country you claim to want to be a part of?

how is any of that British?!?

Shouldn't you be required, in some way, to demonstrate that you actually want to be part of that society?

considering most UK resident are colonizing Spain and are various former colonials no?
[NS]I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS
20-02-2008, 19:56
(odd how they have suddenly become second class citizens)
It's not about making people second class citizens, it's creating a new set of conditions to meet if they wish to become a citizen in the first place. Hell, if we wanted to, we could insist they stand on one leg while holding a Union Jack in each hand singing Rule Britannia.

What's so special about UK citizenship that would make people have to earn it?
Perhaps we just want to be more choosy about who we give citizenship? Nothing wrong with a bit of quality control, every country has a right to choose the best available immigrants to give citizenship.

Anyway, even though I think we should go further, this does seem like a sensible policy. And it's a rare thing for me to praise the government!
Ilaer
20-02-2008, 19:58
Interesting.
Of the two political forums I post on, excluding NSG, one is a predominantly nationalist forum frequented by members of UKIP etc., and all you hear is how immigrants are destroying the nation and how their numbers are causing a crisis (even though many of our university applicants are in fact immigrants, as is a large portion of our medical profession, and even despite the faulty or sometimes just plain *wrong* data provided) and how British culture is going down the drain because of them. You know, the usual rubbish.
And yet they criticise moves like this. Why?

I will criticise this move if the tests turn out to be unreasonable and put off immigrants.
Mad hatters in jeans
20-02-2008, 20:13
You don't get your citizenship. That says nothing about not being allowed to stay there.
Remember, there's a big difference between "citizen" and "resident" This is a citizenship test, not a residency test.
LIVE there? No.
Be a member of that society? Yeah, maybe. Again, we're talking CITIZENSHIP.
Not residency. There's a BIG difference between the two.
And I'm not talking about making anyone "move out" because they can't do that. I'm talking citizenship. Not residency.

Okay, so what's the difference between residency and citizenship?
Wouldn't citizenship eventually lead to residency anyway?
Call to power
20-02-2008, 20:20
I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13468381']It's not about making people second class citizens, it's creating a new set of conditions to meet if they wish to become a citizen in the first place. Hell, if we wanted to, we could insist they stand on one leg while holding a Union Jack in each hand singing Rule Britannia.

"probationary citizenship" just scares me really:

"so okay your a citizen now but we reserve the right to drag you out of bed and deport you as we please"

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13468381']Perhaps we just want to be more choosy about who we give citizenship? Nothing wrong with a bit of quality control, every country has a right to choose the best available immigrants to give citizenship.

its already done though and to be fair what passes as a British citizen these days is hardly an achievement in evolution

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13468381']Anyway, even though I think we should go further, this does seem like a sensible policy. And it's a rare thing for me to praise the government!

confess! you just want immigrants to try desperately to be friends with you so you can sign their papers :p
Levee en masse
20-02-2008, 20:26
he process of becoming a citizen should be "more exacting".



I read "more exciting." :(

I envisioned an "It's a knockout" style challange.

Other then that I think that "ideas" are a load of crap.
Call to power
20-02-2008, 20:39
Other then that I think that "ideas" are a load of crap.

I honestly think labour is doing this for the lulz
Levee en masse
20-02-2008, 20:41
I honestly think labour is doing this for the lulz

It explains Alistair Darling :)
[NS]I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS
20-02-2008, 20:42
"probationary citizenship" just scares me really:

"so okay your a citizen now but we reserve the right to drag you out of bed and deport you as we please"
Hey, it's not like we're moving the goalposts here. They'll know the conditions before they apply for citizenship. One of those conditions is a probationary period. If they don't like the idea, nobody's forcing them to move here or apply for British citizenship.

its already done though and to be fair what passes as a British citizen these days is hardly an achievement in evolution
Looking at the way a lot of this country is, I won't argue with that. But that's a different matter altogether. Still don't think we're quite picky enough at the moment though.
Neo Art
20-02-2008, 20:51
Okay, so what's the difference between residency and citizenship?
Wouldn't citizenship eventually lead to residency anyway?

No, nononononono

You got it entirely backwards. A resident is someone who lives in the country. A citizen is a member of the country. A resident, for lack of a better term, is a guest. He has some obligations to the country (pays taxes etc), has some benefits from the country (is protected largely by the rights governing citizens) but doesn't have all the rights of citizenship (can not freely enter and leave as he chooses whenever he chooses, can not vote, can not hold office, can be deported).

A resident is someone who the government, for lack of a better word, allows to remain in the country. A citizen is a citizen. There is a huge difference between a citizen and a resident. I am a citizen of the United States. I have all the rights and privlidges and responsibilities therein.

My friend Paul is a citizen of canada. He is a lawful permanent resident of the united states (he is a green card holder). He is allowed to live here indefinitly, has much the same rights as a US citizen (protected by rights against search and seizure, first amendment, etc) has many of the obligations of citizens (pays taxes on income he makex in the US) but is not a citizen. He can not vote, can not hold office, and can, theoretically, be required to leave the country should the government decide to revoke his greencard.

And that's fine, really. He's not a citizen. he lives here, he is a resident of the united states, but he's not a citizen of the united states. And if he wants to become a citizen of the united states, I see nothing wrong with the government asking him to demonstrate his loyalty to the US, and his willingness to be a part of our society.
Call to power
20-02-2008, 20:57
I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13468523']Looking at the way a lot of this country is, I won't argue with that. But that's a different matter altogether. Still don't think we're quite picky enough at the moment though.

well somebody has gotta pay all that dole money :p

*does elitist class war things*
Conserative Morality
20-02-2008, 21:22
I'm glad to see that the US government isn't the only one made out of complete idiots. Thank you for reassuring me Britain, I truly thank you.
Newer Burmecia
20-02-2008, 21:23
I honestly think labour is doing this for the lulz
Or to get favourable headlines in the Mail on Sunday.
Redwulf
20-02-2008, 21:35
By and large I can't see anything wrong with this as a general practice (depends on implementation of course). If you want to become a citizen of a country (not just a resident, but a full fledged citizen) shouldn't you be required to demonstrate some loyalty, commitment, and integration into the society and country you claim to want to be a part of?

Residency is one thing, citizenship is entirely another. To be a citizen of a country is to be more than a guest, more than someone who just lives there. It's to be a part of that nation, with all the rights and privileges that this entails. Shouldn't you be required, in some way, to demonstrate that you actually want to be part of that society?

Only if the remove the citizenship rights of natural born citizens who fail to live up to the same standard.
Neo Art
20-02-2008, 21:37
Only if the remove the citizenship rights of natural born citizens who fail to live up to the same standard.

I have no idea what the rules are for britain. In the US the 14th amendment entirely prevents that. I also have issues with ex poste facto laws, and one of the principles of citizenship is that a government can not revoke it from you
Redwulf
20-02-2008, 21:44
I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13468381']It's not about making people second class citizens, it's creating a new set of conditions to meet if they wish to become a citizen in the first place. Hell, if we wanted to, we could insist they stand on one leg while holding a Union Jack in each hand singing Rule Britannia.

Thought it was only called a Union Jack if displayed at sea?
Pan-Arab Barronia
20-02-2008, 22:01
I have no idea what the rules are for britain. In the US the 14th amendment entirely prevents that. I also have issues with ex poste facto laws, and one of the principles of citizenship is that a government can not revoke it from you

We've never done it before, so I assume we can't - and the EU Court of Human Rights'd probably overturn it anyway. :P

Thought it was only called a Union Jack if displayed at sea?

Correct - only the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy can call it the Union Jack. Us landlubbers are to call it the Union Flag.
Pan-Arab Barronia
20-02-2008, 22:03
I'm glad to see that the US government isn't the only one made out of complete idiots. Thank you for reassuring me Britain, I truly thank you.

'Welcome.
[NS]I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS
20-02-2008, 22:05
Only if the remove the citizenship rights of natural born citizens who fail to live up to the same standard.
That would render those people stateless, which would contravene Article 8 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, a convention which the UK has ratified.

Thought it was only called a Union Jack if displayed at sea?
Of course, my bad. Should have said Union Flag.
Redwulf
20-02-2008, 22:27
We've never done it before, so I assume we can't - and the EU Court of Human Rights'd probably overturn it anyway. :P



Correct - only the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy can call it the Union Jack. Us landlubbers are to call it the Union Flag.

Yay! I learned something by watching Doctor Who!
Dukeburyshire
20-02-2008, 22:44
The Problem Britain has now with Immigration is that the USA won't take people by the boatload anymore! That's how we had so many immgrants in the past and were OK, they left after about a year.

I think we should make them, within a year,:

1. Get a permanent job.

2. Get a house and furnish it.

3. Speak and Write English Fluently.

4. Not have committed any crime whilst in Britain.
Kryozerkia
20-02-2008, 22:51
The Problem Britain has now with Immigration is that the USA won't take people by the boatload anymore! That's how we had so many immgrants in the past and were OK, they left after about a year.

I think we should make them, within a year,:

1. Get a permanent job.

2. Get a house and furnish it.

3. Speak and Write English Fluently.

4. Not have committed any crime whilst in Britain.

1 - While this is a fairly reasonable expectation, this should take into account that some households may have a woman who is a homemaker and thus she may still stay home while her spouse gets work. Would all members of the household be expected to, or would it just require that at least one person work and is able to support his/her family?

After all, immigrant families may very well have young ones. We don't make children work nor expect them to have a job. It should remain optional for teenagers while they're in school, as well as for young adults in a post-secondary institution.

2 - You say that as if these people willingly live in a bloody cardboard box.

As for the house bit, would renting or any other type of residency work out? And why wouldn't people want to furnish their abode? Oh and if you want people to furnish their home, then if it's like Canada, permit the people to bring their possessions with them when they move. At least a bare minimum. Having to build from scratch sets them back.

3 & 4 - Kind of a no brainer. However, for #3, the language expectations should be the same as for the general population. And what determines fluency anyway?
Corpracia
20-02-2008, 22:55
I think we should make them, within a year,:

1. Get a permanent job.

2. Get a house and furnish it.
Why is it the job of government to dictate whether an individual has a temporary or 'permanent' job? Or whether they own their own home? Or if it is furnished?
Neo Art
20-02-2008, 22:57
Why is it the job of government to dictate whether an individual has a temporary or 'permanent' job? Or whether they own their own home? Or if it is furnished?

If those individuals wish to become citizens of that country, it is most certainly the job of the government to set the conditions necessary for such citizenship.

They don't HAVE to have a job, or own their own home, or get it furnished. The don't HAVE to become citizens either. Remember folks, this isn't requiring them to have it, it's not even a requirement test for residency. It's a test for citizenship.

And while we can debate what standards are worthwhile, why shouldn't the government be able to set standards that it considers necessary to be met before it grants a foreign national citizenship in that country?
Dukeburyshire
20-02-2008, 22:59
Permanent means contracted in that post. Sorry for the Confusion caused.

I said "Get a house", not "Buy a house", renting etc is acceptable, it's just that we don't want people on the streets.

Furnished could be decided by the Criteria used by letting agencies.

Fluent means able to read & talk in that nation's language without needing a dictonary, except for highly uncommon words, such as Defenestrate.
Kamsaki-Myu
21-02-2008, 00:25
And if he wants to become a citizen of the united states, I see nothing wrong with the government asking him to demonstrate his loyalty to the US, and his willingness to be a part of our society.
Maybe it's me, but I see something sinister in the notion of loyalty to a nation. Loyalty to a person is about empathy and mutual growth, but loyalty to an idea seems like a PC recasting of blind fundamentalism. The "Nation" comes worryingly close to blurring the distinction between the two.
The Black Backslash
21-02-2008, 00:40
Okay, so what's the difference between residency and citizenship?
Wouldn't citizenship eventually lead to residency anyway?

Residency just means you can live there, usually indefinitely; citizenship means full voting rights (I'm not sure there is much more to citizenship than that.)

I'm going to put in my $0.02 here and say that there is nothing wrong with requiring a more strenuous citizenship process. Frankly, I think everyone should go through some sort of citizenship class no matter if they are born in the country or not. I don't agree with special higher tax rates for immigrants, especially since immigrants generally aren't terribly wealthy to begin with. Most people that I have known who are in the process of becoming a naturalized US citizen are doing so to make their lives better. Taxing that seems especially wrong, especially in light of the fact that they cannot even vote.

We should open all borders and only require some degree of assimilation into the established culture. The fees/taxes should only be incurred to fund the branch of government that deals with awarding citizenship.
Corpracia
21-02-2008, 13:58
If those individuals wish to become citizens of that country, it is most certainly the job of the government to set the conditions necessary for such citizenship.

They don't HAVE to have a job, or own their own home, or get it furnished. The don't HAVE to become citizens either. Remember folks, this isn't requiring them to have it, it's not even a requirement test for residency. It's a test for citizenship.

And while we can debate what standards are worthwhile, why shouldn't the government be able to set standards that it considers necessary to be met before it grants a foreign national citizenship in that country?
It can set standards that are reasonable - I agree about language and obeying the law (though speeding fines preventing citizenship might be slightly harsh). However, dictating how someone lives their life is going too far.

Such conditions are not placed on people born in the UK, and ignore that some people might not have to work (rich people) or might not want to live in a fixed abode (travellers). Why are these conditions essential for citizenship? They are not - they are just abusing the power of the state to dictate to individuals in a weaker position.

I understand why people want immigrants to get a job, as there are fears of benefit abuse. However, benefit abuse is more prevalent amongst native people than immigrants - are we going to start forcing everyone to get a job too?
Non Aligned States
21-02-2008, 14:00
To be a citizen of a country is to be more than a guest, more than someone who just lives there. It's to be a part of that nation, with all the rights and privlidges that this entails. Shouldn't you be required, in some way, to demonstrate that you actually want to be part of that society?


Some migrants may also have to pay into a fund towards public services and have a period of "probationary citizenship".

Society... or rich mans club?

I think they don't want new immigrants.
Mirkai
21-02-2008, 14:01
Maybe it's me, but I see something sinister in the notion of loyalty to a nation. Loyalty to a person is about empathy and mutual growth, but loyalty to an idea seems like a PC recasting of blind fundamentalism. The "Nation" comes worryingly close to blurring the distinction between the two.

I'm loyal to my nation because it's sheltered me, given me all the freedoms I've asked for, and has allowed my family a safe and productive place to live. When I look at the alternatives, I see mostly regions that have a few aspects of what I love about my country, but very few that have the whole.

So this little (giant) piece of (mostly empty) land is populated (sparsely) with people and history I have to thank for that. And, like other places, there are less likable people, but every cloud has its hidden death-zeppelin.
Praetonia
21-02-2008, 14:11
A more sensible test would be an income qualification. As Britain has a large welfare state, and many parts of the economy (healthcare, education) are administered centrally on an ability-to-pay basis, people of below a certain income reduce the net income of everybody else, and people above that income increase it. It seems only sensible to set the qualification for citizenship as having an income above that level. Of course, it also makes sense to ensure that potential citizens actually intend to be loyal Brits. A lot of recent new citizens from the middle east seem to want to destroy the British government and replace common law with medieval religious law.
Kyronea
21-02-2008, 14:13
By and large I can't see anything wrong with this as a general practice (depends on implimentation of course). If you want to become a citizen of a country (not just a resident, but a full fledged citizen) shouldn't you be required to demonstrate some loyalty, commitment, and integration into the society and country you claim to want to be a part of?

Residency is one thing, citizenship is entirely another. To be a citizen of a country is to be more than a guest, more than someone who just lives there. It's to be a part of that nation, with all the rights and privlidges that this entails. Shouldn't you be required, in some way, to demonstrate that you actually want to be part of that society?
Sure, but I'm reasonably certain a period of time--say, five years or so--and then an application for citizenship ought to be enough. What this is asking for is something far more and is entirely unnecessary.
Mirkai
21-02-2008, 14:13
A lot of recent new citizens from the middle east seem to want to destroy the British government and replace common law with medieval religious law.

And yet the US complains about its influx of illegal Mexicans who want to pick fruit for sub-minimum wage and greet people at Wal-mart.
Sirmomo1
21-02-2008, 15:00
It is a gimmick and yet more proof that the political agenda of the UK is set by toddlers.

A more sensible test would be an income qualification. As Britain has a large welfare state, and many parts of the economy (healthcare, education) are administered centrally on an ability-to-pay basis, people of below a certain income reduce the net income of everybody else, and people above that income increase it. It seems only sensible to set the qualification for citizenship as having an income above that level. .

You make it sound like people who take low paying jobs aren't helping the British economy.
Praetonia
21-02-2008, 16:13
You make it sound like people who take low paying jobs aren't helping the British economy.
That depends what you mean. In nominal terms, yes, they are making the economy bigger. However, they do not make it bigger by as much as the average Briton does, so when government redistribution programmes "share the wealth out," each individual gets less.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the average amount of money spent by the NHS and state schools on an individual in a year is £10,000, the only tax is income tax and this is 50% of income. This means that if someone is earning £10,000, they are paying £5,000 but receiving £10,000 from the state, ie. from other people, so the other people are worse off. At £20,000, it's break-even and at £25,000 they are paying more to others than they receive. The figures are made up and in real life it isnt nearly so easy to calculate where the "tipping point" lies (in fact it doesnt lie anywhere specifically, it could only be calculated as an average), but the underlying principle being demonstrated is what happens in real life.

It is something that has always struck me as ironic about the New Left, that they are in favour both of extensive redistribution and unlimited immigration - they are mutually exclusive, because you reach a point at which the "other people" can no longer afford to pay extra to fund the additional people, even if they want to (which generally they don't). Personally I would rather have open borders, but living in the real world, rolling back welfare statism is almost impossible whereas imposing border controls are comparatively easy.
Dukeburyshire
21-02-2008, 17:04
Oh, for the days when the poor did the jobs immigrants do...
Infinite Revolution
21-02-2008, 17:32
You don't get your citizenship. That says nothing about not being allowed to stay there.

Remember, there's a big difference between "citizen" and "resident" This is a citizenship test, not a residency test.



LIVE there? No.

Be a member of that society? Yeah, maybe. Again, we're talking CITIZENSHIP.

Not residency. There's a BIG difference between the two.




And I'm not talking about making anyone "move out" because they can't do that. I'm talking citizenship. Not residency.


in this case it should equally be a requirement for people who are born in the country to take the tests on reaching the age of majority.
The blessed Chris
22-02-2008, 02:06
Meh. I'm not opposed to the general thrust, namely, making citizenship harder to acquire, however, the perversion of this priciple that Labour have fashioned is awful.