Huddled immigrant masses face 'British values' quiz Foreigners wishing to obtain a British passport will henceforth face a revamped citizenship test which "focuses on values and principles at the heart of being British". According the BBC, the Home Office has dispensed with nonsense such as "information about water meters, how to find train timetables and using the internet". …
1. Where do you claim asylum?
2. Where is the location of the housing benefits office?
3. How do you claim for non-existant children?
4. How do you get your whole family treated on the NHS?
5. How do you arrange a marriage to a British or EU citizen?
6. How do you claim unemployment benefit?
7. How do you play the legal system for years and gain the right to stay?
8. (For terrorists only) How do you prevent deportation?
9. How do you use the Human Rights legislation to your advantage?
10. How do you claim compensation?
10 out of 10 Sir, you can stay.
Hey Lars, I just got my British Residency Permit; the fee was about £1,000 and followed on from two other visas with similar charges, and during my time here access to benefits has been explicitly prohibited. That's what it's like for migrants who don't come from the EU, and the EU is by far the greatest source. There's a points system and most native born Brits wouldn't meet the minimum qualification to get in; that's not knocking Brits, just to point out that it's not as easy to get in as the idiots say.
So, this migrant says fuck your ignorance and your dumb-arse Daily Mail comedy routine.
This post has been deleted by its author
JC,
You have hit upon a very good point i.e. EU vs non-EU.
I'm quite amazed at just how many people seem to think that immigration laws apply equally, everywhere. As you say, non-EU immigration is a completely different kettle o' fish.
Most of the items on the OP's list are really an illustration of issues arising with EU cross-border migration. Maybe Lars should be directing his concerns to his MEP.
I was impressed to note that you didn't lower the standard of your response by throwing the silly 'racist/xenophobe' slight around - as seems to the norm these days.
+1
Hey Lars, I finally got my British citizenship last year, after nine years in the UK and one tour of Afghanistan with the British Army.
During that entire time I had no access to any benefits of any kind, but I was certainly paying taxes and NI. I also had to renew my visa twice, and passed the previous citizenship test to get my British citizenship. So while I agree that some people, British and foreign, abuse the asylum and benefits system, I also think the general complaining about immigration is a bit silly.
Not just an ungrateful prat, but a cowardly ungrateful prat!
If the OP has served our country at the sharp end (and paid N.I.!) then fair play to him/her. I for one would happily welcome them and provide them with directions to the nearest Tobacconist*
* - but no passport unless they get the Python reference.
"Do you not count free health as a 'benefit'?"
Actually as a migrant in the UK, your health care is only free if your country has a reciprocal health agreement with the UK. If not, then you pay up front. This may not be the case for those that have been accepted as refugees, but it is for everyone else.
So this "benefit" you talk about is basically only around so that when you british buggers hurt yourself doing drunken things in another country that you get treatment there for free. I'd say thats fair wouldnt you...
"Actually as a migrant in the UK, your health care is only free if your country has a reciprocal health agreement with the UK. If not, then you pay up front. This may not be the case for those that have been accepted as refugees, but it is for everyone else."
I'm not so sure that you are right there. There are 2 types of immigration. EU and non-EU. I thought that non-EU is pretty much as you stated, but EU migrants had full and unfettered access, as demanded by Brussels.
In 2012, after a bit of bickering, the European Commission said that immigrants from the EU are entitled to stay and use the NHS indefinitely, even if they do not pay taxes here.
This is what the UK Border agency has to say.
I don't think you' re right there. EU citizens are not allowed to benefit shop and as a British subject living abroad in the EU, I had to prove that I could support myself and had either sufficient savings or a job.
I'd also point out that, in my experience, benefits and health care are generally better in other EU countries (I have lived and worked in several but certainly not all!).
It's all a little confusing I must admit. ISTM that there's still creases to be ironed out and debates to be had.
On the one had we have the European Commission saying one thing and the UK Government saying something else. Then, I have just read this.
Brussels are demanding that Britain give EU migrants rights to a range of welfare benefits and unfettered treatment on the NHS. The UK Government, says no way. (Either way, the European Commission says that immigrants from the EU are entitled to stay and use the NHS indefinitely, even if they do not pay taxes here and threatened the UK with action in European Court of Justice if they did not comply).
As usual, a complete farce.
To quote from the EU web site:
Right of residence for more than three months
The right of residence for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions. Applicants must:
either be engaged in economic activity (on an employed or self-employed basis);
or have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. The Member States may not specify a minimum amount which they deem sufficient, but they must take account of personal circumstances;
or be following vocational training as a student and have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay;
or be a family member of a Union citizen who falls into one of the above categories.
I personally think that immigrants will find out by themselves how to read a water meter or similar things which they need to know in their everyday lives. It is the more underlying parts of the culture which one needs to work on. The history forms a basic framework for understanding the culture, and so does the basic workings of government and law. As a non English speaking immigrant myself (to Canada) I came at an early enough age to get this information as part of my schooling, but my parents made a point of studying the local history in order to understand their new culture. Were I to move to China I would do the same. Actually, even if I went as a tourist to England, I would read enough about it to know about Nelson and the battle of Trafalgar.
I'm a migrant. My mother was a migrant twice. She remembers her sister being embarrassed for her, because she didn't know enough to walk on the footpath/sidewalk instead of on the road.
I personally think that it's valuable to point out the simple things like how to read a water meter or similar things they need to know in their everday lives. Once you have that basic framework for understanding the culture, you have a basis for understanding history and society.
Or to put it another way, none who doesn't understand the implacable nature of a coin-in-slot gas meter will understand Wallace & Gromit "A Grand Day Out" at a cultural level, no matter how often the see it.
Also, stuff about water meters and so on is important for new immigrants, however one is usually only eligible to apply for citizenship after a lengthy period of residence by which time one presumably knows most of the practicalities.
Why bother applying for citizenship if you already have permanent residency, if you can't be bothered to learn a bit of the cultural history of the place? Obviously exceptions would need to be made in certain cases.
Actually, even if I went as a tourist to England, I would read enough about it to know about Nelson and the battle of Trafalgar.
Why Nelson & Trafalgar?
The history of this fair isle is long, rich, detailed and complex. Taking a snapshot of one event (whatever its perceived magnitude may be) gives a distorted idea of what the nation is, what it stands for and what it's culture is like.
The alternative is spending so long looking into historical events that any hope of actually being a tourist becomes impossible - try untangling the complexities of a visit to France for example: how many people would bother finding out about what the long term impact of the Carnute uprising was, but it is arguable that this had a knock on effect for all of Europe's culture.
There is nothing wrong with having an understanding of the country you are visiting - or migrating to - but local history is often quite alien to locals let alone foreigners.
Trafalgar was a key historical event in the history of the United Kingdom, but it is hard to say it is a defining event of British (or even English) culture any more than the hundreds of other related events.
In a nutshell, this is the problem with the citizenship test. If we define citizenship as being able to answer some multi-guess questions about a subset of our history then we are basically saying access to Wikipedia and a good memory is all you need to be British.
(Worryingly, I have run a short pop survey in my workplace and 90% of born-British people questioned struggled with some key questions when they were rephrased - eg. "When was the Battle of Trafalgar" and "What is important in Trafalgar Square".)
Trafalgar was a key historical event in the history of the United Kingdom, but it is hard to say it is a defining event of British (or even English) culture any more than the hundreds of other related events.
It was quite definitive for British Culture,. If we'd lost we'd probably have been invaded by the French. So a bit like the Battle of Britain. (If we'd lost either we'd have been "in Europe" long ago).
If you think otherwise then read up about the public opinion of the victory at the time, or go and visit his tomb in St. Paul's crypt.
The military importance of Trafalgar has been re-assessed somewhat since Nelson's day.
Napoleon had already withdrawn his invasion army from France and sent it toward the invasion of Austria 5days before the battle - although the news hadn't reach the British fleet.
The major strategic effect of Trafalgar was actually on the Spanish rather than the French.
They lost many more ships and officers and never managed to rebuild - 1805 marked the end of Spain as any sort of power in Europe. The French fleet was back upto strength and arguably better equipped and better led within a generation.
This kind of highlights the point I was making with a previous post when I wrote:
Why Nelson & Trafalgar?
The history of this fair isle is long, rich, detailed and complex. Taking a snapshot of one event (whatever its perceived magnitude may be) gives a distorted idea of what the nation is, what it stands for and what it's culture is like.
The fact is, everyone has an idea about what historical events were important but finding a consensus is very difficult.
@gordon
It was quite definitive for British Culture,. If we'd lost we'd probably have been invaded by the French. So a bit like the Battle of Britain. (If we'd lost either we'd have been "in Europe" long ago).
Does that make it more "important" to British culture than The Battle of Britain, The Glorious Revolution, The Monmouth Rebellion, the English Civil Wars, the War of the Roses, Owain Glyndwr's uprising, the Baron's revolts, Hastings, Stamford Bridge, the Viking invasions, the Saxon invasions, the Roman invasions, Celtic migrations (etc).
It could be argued that if any of these had turned out differently, British Culture would be unrecognisable from what we have today.
@mike2r
It marks the last time the Royal Navy was challenged in an all-out fleet action. Literally from that point until the carrier age, Britain was the uncontested naval power of the world. Nations that fought Britain might try to go after her trade ships, or act where the navy was weak. But no one tried to assemble a battle fleet and fight head on.
I'd say that this had a pretty profound impact over the direction of British culture for the next century and a half or so.
This isnt quite correct - it is largely the result of the PR spin placed on the battle during the Napoleonic Wars and the resulting hero-status given to Nelson.
The Royal Navy had been an uncontested naval power of the world several times previously and it could be argued that under Elizabeth I the British were at their most effective at projecting sea power and controlling world supply lanes.
Trafalgar could probably be better seen as a redemption following 40 odd years of poor naval performance rather than a game changer which asserted British naval dominance for the next 100 years. This might explain why the nation was so keen to spin it into a great victory and the most important event in our history (it wasnt).
Anyway - all this goes to my point: Nelson / Trafalgar is an arbitrary snapshot of British history that masks the underlying cultural and political changes that actually go to make up our nation. Knowing Nelson's column is in London doesn't make you a better British person than knowing how long it took Harold to get from Stamford Bridge to Battle.
"Trafalgar was a key historical event in the history of the United Kingdom, but it is hard to say it is a defining event of British (or even English) culture any more than the hundreds of other related events."
It marks the last time the Royal Navy was challenged in an all-out fleet action. Literally from that point until the carrier age, Britain was the uncontested naval power of the world. Nations that fought Britain might try to go after her trade ships, or act where the navy was weak. But no one tried to assemble a battle fleet and fight head on.
I'd say that this had a pretty profound impact over the direction of British culture for the next century and a half or so.
Also that the main ship timbers had to come from mainland Europe as we'd used up all the decent timber long before then.
Lester ought to do a piece on how long we've been importing what we'd considered to be locally available materials -- timber, coal etc. It's surprising how long it's been since we had decent stuff on these isles of plenty but then there seem to be few Brits who understand that for the most part we have an industrial landscape -- them Iron and Bronze ages needed a lot of fuel.
Mike 2r wrote
"It [Trafalgar] marks the last time the Royal Navy was challenged in an all-out fleet action. Literally from that point until the carrier age, Britain was the uncontested naval power of the world. Nations that fought Britain might try to go after her trade ships, or act where the navy was weak. But no one tried to assemble a battle fleet and fight head on."
Battle of Jutland: 31 May - 1 June 1916. German Battle Fleet v. Royal Navy
World's first aircraft carrier: HMS Argus 1918
Carrier age 1935 -
Which country did you say you were from, Mike?
My understanding - I don't claim any expertise - was that Jutland was an attempt to destroy *part* of the Royal Navy battleships by trapping them into fighting piecemeal. Not simply setting out to go toe to toe against the entire fleet in order to fight a decisive battle for naval dominance.
Anyway metal ships are boring and don't really count.
The history of the country where you are applying for a citizenship is a core value. To be more exact that is valid for both the history and its specific interpretation - the bits that are included and the bits that are purposefully omitted to form the appropriate half-truth.
In this particular case however it has more to do with Mrs May desperately trying to patch up the holes under the waterline ahead of the dreadful 2014 when the Romanians and Bulgarians influx will bring the end of British civilization (according to the Daily Beobachter).
First of all, the ones that wanted to be here are already here - there is enough means in the current system for that. Second the ones that want to fleece benefits are already doing so. Third, the ones that came here to do real work are already considering to leave and leaving same as Polish and Baltic states did before them. And fourth - she should stop asking the Daily Fail if they would like it with coffee or ice-cubes. While we can understand and commiserate with the current government having to go cold turkey off gagging on a old wrinkly Australian, replacing it immediately with Volkisher Beobachter does not do them any good. The readers of Volkisher Beobachter wil not vote for them anyway.
What is this "history" you speak of? The Victorian version of it that's been stamped into children since then? Something usefully focused on the period from 1066 to the Tudors? The revised version looking at atrocities from Ireland to the Raj? A more feminist one?
Can we now kick out all those residents, british-born or not, who cannot answer "What should you never mind if you're a Sex Pistols fan?" --- this solves the entire NHS and budgeting crisis, as not many over-60s would answer.
[As a Belgian, I never learned anything much at school about the few million Congolese that were killed under the glorious regime of king Leopold I... There was a hint in the margins (e.g., Stanley the newspaperman was mentioned) but it was mostly economic structures and administrative organisation.]
" I never learned anything much at school about the few million Congolese that were killed under the glorious regime of king Leopold"
I remember some 'inconveniences' form my history lessons -- Opium wars and the Black Hole of Calcutta were a bit of a nuisance to the English businessmen of the time.
Anybody who could read and memorise the handbook would pass, and the majority of people who did not read the handbook would fail.
You could simply take a course on English language instead of doing the "Life in the UK Test" - just to hammer in that it wasn't really about knowing anything about the UK.
The test has needed updating since original publication anyway - the old book had an error on the copyright page, and also contains several incorrect statements - eg legal age for smoking is not 16 as it said in the old Handbook.
Presumably this update is to force all future Governments to update it on coming to power - after all, the second largest party may well be UKIP next time, Labour having self-immolated.
RE "Presumably this update is to force all future Governments to update it on coming to power - after all, the second largest party may well be UKIP next time, Labour having self-immolated."
Presumably we will be able to call the second largest party "the opposition".
"after all, the second largest party may well be UKIP next time, Labour having self-immolated."
You mis-typed, it's the Conservatives who have self immolated. Nobody who traditionally might vote Tory is going to vote for David "I worship Tony Blair" Cameron.
But anyway, the purpose of this daft quiz is to avoid Westminster taking any difficult decisions, like limiting the number of immigrants to the number of emigrants less any resident population increase. As things stand, we don't have enough housing, we don't have enough jobs, we don't have the money to pay for existing demand on health, pensions and welfare, and our infrastructure struggles to cope with current levels of demand. Letting in an incremental 200,000 people a year ought to require building the equivalent of a city the size of Luton each and every year, plus about half that number for the increase in the resident population, and that's simply not happening. On the plus side (for home owners and landlords) that keeps property prices high, but that's hardly a benefit to the economy as a whole.
Nah, Labour self-immolated and keep on relighting the match, the Lib Dems have had a rude awakening that "sometimes being in Government means making decisions" and the Conservatives are continuing their ongoing tradition of self-harm.
Nobody in their right mind could vote Labour next time - last time they were in power they killed the economy and created a benefits system that rewards refusing to work and having as many children as physically possible, and have continued to show that they no longer have any "core values" whatsoever, their opposition has been one bandwagon after another, interspersed with "we oppose that but wouldn't change it"
The Conservatives do at least have some core values left, so even if you disagree with them you can at least understand their goals. (Although it's rare that any Government policy of any flavour could actually achieve them!)
I rather think this is what happens when you get a "Political Class" - these days you'd be hard pressed to name more than ten of MPs who've had real jobs for any length of time. I think there are none at all in Labour, and very few in the other parties.
Never overestimate the intelligence of the voters, I have the worrying thoughts that we will end up with PM Millipeed and Chancellor Bollocks.
As to Lib Dems - I think they had a huge shock, but they did need to see that being in charge means you have to be serious.
I will admit to wondering if the wrong David got the job.
But if you compare the three main party leaders, only Cameron is not a complete joke, and that is struggling!
"But if you compare the three main party leaders, only Cameron is not a complete joke, and that is struggling!"
The only concievable explanation for the performance, actions and choices of the current crop of leaders is that each is a plant, working for another party. So just as Tory strategists celebrated the success of Operation Sad Panda, their own party was being ruled by a vacuuous human shell, the brain surgically removed, and the golem-like body remotely controlled from the basement of Labour party. Clegg of course is an agent from one extremist faction of the LibDems against the other various extremists factions that collectively pretend to be a single party.
Championing the under dog.
Decrying the successful (once we have had enough of their pea-cocking).
Telling people what to do.
Telling people what they shouldn't be doing.
Fighting and subjugating* populations. (*Though not so much recently).
Complaining.
Drinking Tea.
Taking the piss.
But most of all taking the piss...
Yeah, I think I'd fail that, I'm guessing the answers to those three questions were
Nelson, poppy, pass and 21?
Honestly I'd rather see the basic skills covered to get a british passport.
Have you been living here more than 6 years
Have you been working for 4 of those 6 years
Did you need this test translated
I honestly don't mind foreigners moving to the UK. Just so long as they learn the language, and give back to the community. I don't think any immigrants should get any form of benefits until they've been here for at least 4 years though, neither do I think they should have access to the NHS, and I don't think they should get access unless they've been working.
Sad part is when I lived / worked in southampton, there were so many people there who didn't speak the language at all. The funny part was they were split into a few different groups, some who would try to hide it by not talking at all. Others who were elderly and had family translate for them (which isn't so bad, they were normally ancient) and my fave group, the ones who could barely speak the language but tried anyway.
@wowfood
Broadly agree, but:
neither do I think they should have access to the NHS
Would you rather have sick and diseased migrants spreading illness or having to resort to crime to survive?
Out of curiosity: Would you deny access to the NHS & benefits to a natural born, yet orphaned, citizen who was crippled in their last year of school and rendered unable to work for the rest of their lives?
Would you rather have sick and diseased migrants spreading illness or having to resort to crime to survive?
No, but at the same time, i'd rather have them in work before they come over here to a degree where they can afford at least some degree of health insurance, rather than it being footed by the tax payer.
Out of curiosity: Would you deny access to the NHS & benefits to a natural born, yet orphaned, citizen who was crippled in their last year of school and rendered unable to work for the rest of their lives?
If they've lived their lives in the system, and their previous family had paid taxes yes. My objection isn't to them getting healthcare at all, it's to them getting healthcare for free when they've done nothing to pay into it. Admittedly a factoid from the daily fail, but a number of migrants to come to the UK just to use the NHS, and then trundle off back home. That is why I put in the point of them living here for a period of time and holding down a job.
Like I said so long as they give back to society I don't mind.
I'm also against people continuoly claiming job seekers. I believe they should be forced to do some kind of volunteer / charity / community work to earn JSA. Likewise I think child support should be cut off, (or drastically lowered) after the third child.
Anonymous so I don't get mobbed by either the "don't let anyone in" or the "let everyone in crowd".
Backstory; I'm an immigrant from the UK to somewhere far far away.
I think the biggest problem with the citizenship stuff in the UK is that citizenship is too easy to get. A lot of countries will only allow immigrants permanent leave to stay after the same amount of time (3+ years usually) as the UK allow immigrants to naturalise. They need to make citizenship less attractive i.e. 10+ years in the country, no dual nationality, no criminal record acceptable, favoured towards spouses of nationals and children of nationals, English exam, name transliterated officially etc..
This would make applying for permanent leave to stay more attractive which affords most immigrants the rights they want in the UK (i.e. to not have to keep extending their visa, not having to depend on a spouse or sponsor to renew) without handing over passports to people that have no interest in actually becoming British and integrating.
This scheme of "Britishness exams" is a failed attempt to make citizenship less attractive by making it seem harder to obtain rather than actually making it harder to obtain.
This post has been deleted by its author
>10 years of taxation without representation?
I guess you mean immigrants should have the right to vote? That should be linked to their right to work (and hence pay tax) not their citizenship... There are non-UK citizens that vote in the UK.
>Dual nationality is nobody's business
If you don't want to actually take your new nationality apply for permanent leave to stay. Citizenship should not equal be equal to an everlasting visa with benefits.
This post has been deleted by its author
you have not idea how many hoops you get to jump through to get UK passport. And you would have had your own passport lost in "that" place, at least once, for a period of 2 years or more, so you would have been stranded on this "little island" in the meantime. Well, you wanted it, so you got it, full submersion :)
Erm,
They need to make citizenship less attractive i.e. 10+ years in the country, no dual nationality, no criminal record acceptable, favoured towards spouses of nationals and children of nationals, English exam, name transliterated officially etc.
How easy do you think it is to get British citizenship?
I am reasonably sure the 3 year residency requirement is only for people married to a British citizen (as in "spouse of nationals") and there is a criminal record check.
Dual nationality would be a whole new can of worms.
1. What is your name?
2. What is your quest?
3. What is your favourite colour?
OR
3. What is the capitol of Assyria
OR
3. What is the average airspeed of an unladen swallow?
I know, I know! The one with Monty's Encylopythonia in the pocket, please
This post has been deleted by its author
'Don Flynn, head honcho at the Migrants' Rights Network, described it as ..."more like an entry examination for an elite public school". '
Hmm, let's see...
http://www.etoncollege.com/userfiles/file/KS%202011%20History,%20Geography%20&%20Divinity.pdf
I note a distressing absence of questions about thrashing the French here - what is Eton coming to?
I've looked at this test in the past and really, the questions are ludicrous. Three basic questions are all that's really needed:
1) Are you a prat?
2) Do you understand common manners (please, thank you etc)?
3) Are you a good neighbour (not leaving trash around etc)?
Bonus
4) Does your culture have a celebration on a date we're not using and can we adopt it for a party?
Seriously...people are people and whilst there can be some cultural tensions, reasonable people will sit down and sort it out. Hence question 1).
Labour's Chris Bryant used the announcement as an opportunity for the inevitable pop at Home Secretary Theresa May, who he reckons "should be focusing on fixing the big problems in her department
Whilst not a fan of Ms May this comment made me think what Labour was saying was more along the lines of "Should fix all the problems we left for you so when we get back to power we can have an unimpeded run at wrecking everything again .... "
that your typical Brit lager lout can't answer the questions.
Several different tests have proved that Americans don't know how many states there are or what they names are. (50 states but most people forget about a whole bunch of other acquisitions, such as Puerto Rico, and thirteen others. Canada is not a US state, despite what some Americans think)
In Canada many Canadians could not answer the question: How many provinces and territories are there in Canada. (10 provinces and 3 territories)(Northwest Territories, Nunavut & Yukon)(Provinces have the right to use Constitutional Powers on their own, whilst Territories exercise power at the discretion of the Federal government.)
"Unfortunately we cant just kick the crud out the country...
no more un-explored continents to send them too..."
Atlantis maybe? Last guess at it's location is the middle of a volcanic crater surrounded by the Greek island of Santorini. Plenty of space to sink a few hundred thousand racists.
The main thing I had to learn for my canadian citizenship was the captial of each province/territory.
So if the natives (well not actually the natives of course - just the last lot of immigrants with a more direct attitude to citizenship) ever need any help I'm ready and waiting to tell them that Charlottetown is the capital of PEI
1. Which Home Secretary famously made up a story about "having a cat meaning an automatic right to stay in the UK", claiming that "You couldn't make it up".
2. Who, or what is "Maddie"?
A. A blonde, blue-eyed victim of dastardly foreigners?
B. The major source of revenue for a national newspaper.
C. Both of the above.
3. In the average comments thread on a subject related, tangentially or otherwise, to "immigrants", what percentage of comments will be written by retarded xenophobic eejits?
A. 30%
B. 50%
C. 70%
100%. Doddle really, but if this is regarded as "more like an entry examination for an elite public school", then, christ - Britain's really gone downhill!!!
(Oh, where can I get that 'fighting strength lager'? "8Ace" from VIZ wants to know, but it'd have to be £1.89...)
1. You're travelling on the London Underground and a man you've never met before sits down next to you. What do you say to him?
2. You're travelling on a bus and a group of youths board the bus and proceed to play very loud music from their mobile telephones. What do you say to them?
3. You've just entered a large building with a friend and are having a conversation with your friend while you both wait for the lift. What will you talk about when you actually get in the lift?
Answers on the back of a postcard (and if you don't know what one of those is, you've definitely failed)
1. Start mumbling to yourself and gently rock back and forth. The man that sat next to you will shortly leave. Rinse, wash and repeat for future occurrences.
2. Nothing. Until you get to your stop. Call them a bunch of twats just as you're getting up, and then run for your life.
3. Nothing. If the lift is going up, then stare at the ceiling lights. If the lift is going down then stare at the floor. If there's someone else in the lift, then thank them when getting off at your floor - even if they didn't do anything.
"The history of the country where you are applying for a citizenship is a core value".
Not so. Values, for a start, are opinions and preferences - thus fundamentally subjective. One can perhaps speak of "shared values", but mostly only in a statistical sense. If I have a preference for representative democracy, that is a value. If I believe the UK is a parliamentary democracy, that is not a value but a factual belief.
The history of the UK, while it has often been grotesquely distorted, does include a long list of facts (such as dates of important events, names of rulers, etc.) that are not in dispute. Those are facts, and facts are (by definition) not values. That England conquered Wales, Ireland and (in a sense) Scotland is a set of facts. Whether that was a good thing or a bad thing is a value. Thus values are those beliefs that you cannot reasonably expect everyone to agree on. If you could, they would be facts.
That the current politically correct ruling establishment seems to think that you can identify a fixed set of values and allege that everyone in the country shares those values makes it abundantly clear that they are either profoundly uneducated or vilely cynical. Or both, of course.
...If I believe the UK is a parliamentary democracy, that is not a value but a factual belief....
If I believe that London is the capital of the UK, that is a factual belief. If I believe the UK is a parliamentary democracy, that is not a value or a factual belief, but a delusion.
There, fixed that for you...
"The history of the country where you are applying for a citizenship is a core value".
It is indeed:
0-9Bn years, mostly hanging around as Hydrogen and Helium
9-13Bn years, collapsed into ball of rock, got hot, cooled down
13-13.6Bn years, split off from rest of single giant continent somewhere south of the equator and headed north in search of weather worth complaining about. Eventually crashed into Scotland which had left Canada for same reason
13.6 - 13.6001 Bn years, ice retreats finally cutting off rest of world.
1. The standard citizenship test (when it was introduced in 2004/5) was harder than most people thought. Testing centres staffed by British naturals (i.e. were born in this country) had to sit the test to see just how difficult it could be. One testing centre had the majority of its staff FAIL because they thought they knew it all, and clearly didn't. Others had pass rates of around 60%. Even if it's a multiple choice test, the book you have to get is voluminous and you don't know which of the many questions you will get, and the pass rate is 75%.
2. The test as it was introduced was fairly left-leaning. Instead of sticking to common-sense topics, there were questions that clearly favoured Labour and Labour policies, which frankly was rather underhanded. How do you get guaranteed voters for your party? By getting them to answer 'your' questions right, and getting them to be grateful for your policies, of course! Theresa May is fixing this by concentrating more on things that matter, i.e. culture and history, not politics.
3. Those who think that "getting British citizenship is a piece of piss" - Think again. Even ancestral visas are a pain in the proverbial because that path has been used and abused in the past. Those advocating making citizenship harder to get have to realise that it is already difficult.
Those who *do* obtain citizenship will have had *no* recourse to the benefit system (in fact work permits and ILtR permits specifically tell you that you may *not* claim benefits at any given time except for NHS services), will have spent thousands on not only fees to the government (work permits, ILtR and citizenship applications now cost upwards of £500 a pop) but also to solicitors who specialise in navigating the labyrinth of Lunar House in Croydon and elsewhere. So your 'immigrant' has over their 5.5 year journey in this country contributed more than you, the common Brit who was born here, has.
4. You will find that those who apply for citizenship (and pass) are more likely to be entrepreneurial than the locals, they are less likely to go onto benefits (too proud because they had 5.5 years in which they were not *allowed* onto the system, so why should they now), and they're more likely to be good citizens than those who believe it was their god-given right to be British.
I agree with pretty much everything you have said here - except for this:
Theresa May is fixing this by concentrating more on things that matter, i.e. culture and history, not politics.
Culture and History are inseparable from Politics. All the wonderful May has done is change the colour of the politics.
-- more likely to be entrepreneurial than the locals, they are less likely to go onto benefits (too proud because they had 5.5 years in which they were not *allowed* onto the system, so why should they now), and they're more likely to be good citizens than those who believe it was their god-given right --
Same here, Maybe we should all go back to "the ould sod" for a generation and start over.
Nah; I don't want to live in either Russia OR Prussia.
So here is a question for you
What is a sensible population for a small island with sever houseing shortages?
Answer: A lot less than it is now.
Every country in the world really needs to take a look at it's population and come up with policies to promote moving to an ideal and sustainable population (whatever the ethnicity).
This post has been deleted by its author
So you are in favor of China's one child policy where girls are being aborted and poor families dump unwanted babies in the middle of street I take it?
Perhaps every country in the world needs to look at the scientific evolution of our species and see that human beings are inherently nomadic and migrated most the world quite freely up until 1905 - to keep out Jewish people (1960's for Commonwealth citizens - to keep out black people).
Ironically Lord Nelson would have considered the only limitations of immigration at the borders where the British Empire fought for expansion - every country that came under English control would have given the citizens of that country the right to be part of the commonwealth.
In Nelson's day, being pro-war meant being (in a sense) pro-immigration. Now we just seem to have empires that are pro-war, but none of the benefits.
...What is a sensible population for a small island with sever houseing (sic) shortages? Answer: A lot less than it is now....
or, perhaps, new houses need to be built?
Anyone who thinks that this generation is the first to have exceeded the carrying population of the Earth needs to re-read history, and then read Julian Simon ...
Is not legal migrants, it never has been, and it never will be.
The citizenship test is complete bollocks aimed at getting the more rabid of the daily wail's readership to vote for you. since they make up the swing votes in the 50 or so marginal seats you need to win to grab power in this country.
The immigration problem is the number of illegals, combined with the number of illegals who try playing the asylum system(and a number of lawyers who do very well out of this too), but the government will not do anything about this.
Why?
Because it provides certain employers cheap labour that wont complain when its screwed out of the money they were supposed to get, thus keeping everyone's wages down, and more importantly, meaning those nasty daily wail readers can get cheap vegetables at waitrose etc.
"The citizenship test is complete bollocks aimed at getting the more rabid of the daily wail's readership to vote for you."
That is the essence of this thing. Learning answers a few trivia questions about the country is not in any way an indicator of someone's Britishness. You may know who Nelson was and still hate the guts of this country or be ready to murder your own daughter if she refuses to marry someone you sold her to.
To think that a "test" can identify and somehow filter out such people is so stupid as going beyond belief.
...to the U.S. where they can become a U.S. citizen, without being able to read, write or speak the English language. Then they get all of the gov'ment hand-outs even though they have never paid a dime into the system to earn the "benefits" they are being provided with, in addition to being welcomed as U.S. citizens, when in fact they are illegal aliens, aka criminals. Only in America...they say.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/29/16753708-first-thoughts-obama-to-embrace-senate-deal?lite
Yeah, cos you cant move for state benefits in the USA.
Maybe if the country had less reliance on an undocumented, underpaid and mistreated illegal migrant workforce, people would try to fix it.
Unlikely though as that flies in the face of the capitalist model.
Throw down the borders and let the free market deal with the consequences.
The Tattooed White van man (& how to avoid confrontation)
Trafic wardens
Essex girls/bimbos
Football yobos
U turn politicians ( a la Nick Clegg ). Wonder if his Spanish wife would pass the test..
Most of the Scots would fail the test too.
Beer swilling, pot bellied , foul mouthed wankers leaving the pubs every night.
This seems to have become a Naval History debate.
Get back to the questions. Mine are:
1. How far is it to Tipperary? (A: A long way)
2. How long do you have to wait for a bus to come? (A: For ever)
3. When a bus comes, how many are there? (A: All of them together)
4. Why is Boris Johnson funny? (Any answer including the word "buffoon" or "bumbling" is acceptable)
Apparently these feature in the current test. Well here's what REALLY gets to me, these are all ancient history for anyone who wasn't born in the early 60's. Now my dad tells me that Monty Python was quite good in it's time, well I don't find it that funny, I get it, but it's just so puerile, I mean the Spanish Inquisition with the Comfy Chair, that made people laugh? Why not questions on more contemporary comedy, Red Dwarf and Black Adder are perfectly acceptable. I do confess though to finding Faulty Towers funny though, some things to age well.
As for the Beatles, two of them left the UK for good, seems hypocritical to put them in a 'citizenship' test. Better candidates? How about New Order, (every one still in the UK), The Charlatans etc?
Or is the whole idea of the test to ensure that only those over 50, or who read history books should be eligible?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
