h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1805000/1805883.stm

Does this seem to anyone else to be a less 'controversial' to crack down on immigration? David Blunkett has said that he wants to remove immigration from the BNP's 'armoury' - something that sounds dangerously like appeasement to me, and these are the last people I would want to have any influence on government policy.

The idea of a pledge disturbs me as well. I don't have to swear allegiance to the UK - why should someone who's been forced to leave their country have to? Also, the idea that asylum seekers should be forced to sit tests is absurd. Yes, there should be help on offer to allow these refugees live as normal a life as possible, and to settle them in to what may well be a frighteningly different - and often hostile - culture. But tests? Is the government going to deport UK citizens that fail Standard Grade English?

People don't leave their country and their families on a whim, because it seems like a fun thing to do. They do so because they fear for their lives, or they have no choice. Treating these people as automatically 'bogus', unless they can prove themselves, and then making them sit tests and repeat pledges, seems to me like heaping humiliation upon those who have suffered enough.

Do you think that anybody coming to your country and claiming asylum should automatically be admitted?

Nope. But I think they should be treated with respect and decency until they have been 'processed'. Not assumed to be bogus unless they can prove otherwise.

Sorry, this may seem odd, but I'd rather have a few 'bogus' asylum seekers sponging off the state, than send people back to the terror they fled from, just because they don't meet our overly-stringent criteria. Or because they failed an exam.

Two points:
(1) The oath has been around for a very long time.
(2) You swear an oath when granted British Citizenship, not asylum. Those who seek asylum will be granted it according to the existing rules and will not have to swear an oath.

It sounds like it is getting more American, where I believe you already have to sit an exam to get citizenship, and there is all that swearing allegiance to the flag stuff as well.
I think, unfortunately, the bad side of asylum gets an overly big show in British politics as the majority of asylum seekers end up in the South East of England, near London. Hence plenty of policy makers notice them when they encroach on their Home Counties villages. Once someone has passed through the asylum system they then spread out round the country, no londger in the eye of the press etc. I think a lot of it is NIMBY by th uppercrust in this part of the world, worried about their property prices as much as anything else.

Unfortuneatly, it is a real political problem that Labour need to address.
At least one of my work colleagues has stated openly that he believes Kosovan refugees are 'destroying' his home town. He is an old fashioned but reasonable member of the community. It isn't just the BNP who are going to be able to use this fear, but the Tories as well.
I can't think of an easy solutuion to the problem.

the universal declaration of human rights
Article 2
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distiction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, ...[and]national or social origin."

does this mean that standard english tests are, under the act, illegal?

the universal declaration of human rights
Article 2
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distiction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, ...[and]national or social origin."

does this mean that standard english tests are, under the act, illegal?

I don't think so, since the charter doesn't specify geographic limits, besides which I'm not sure that the UN charter on human rights has much force in law. On the other hand the EU charter for human rights is law in the member states.

Is it not reasonable to expect asylum seekers/immigrants/etc to try to become productive members of society? How can they do this without being able to speak English?

Is it not also reasonable to expect them, regardless of persecution in their country of origin, to put some effort in to repay what is being done for them? Why should learning English not be a part of this effort, especially given the benefits for them?

Do not misunderstand me; I am in no way suggesting that they do not want to do these things or are lazy freeloaders or anything like that. But they are being thrown into the deep end of an alien society, right on the bottom rung of the ladder. They could use a little help, and we should be able to expect them to return this by learning the necessary things to get by in this country.

There's no need for a silly oath, though.

In my opinion refugees should be allowed into the UK and then taught English to help them to survive here. Its not their fault they had to leave their own nation and we should help them to do well in Britain.

But immigrants are different, they should at least know how to speak our language.

Generally I am against any kind of oath of loyalty, if my country did something overly stupid I wouldn't be loyal to it.

I think the language thing comes from the fact that there are many in the current resident asian areas who have lived here many years and still cannot speak english. I suspect this isn't restricted to asians either - I had a friend at school whose parents were polish and could not either.

I think the idea is to prevent isolation and lack of inclusion into mainstream society for such people. I believe there was a study recently that showed that many areas that are predominantly black or asian in the UK have little or no contact or interaction with the white population in the same area. That surely cannot be a good thing.

not that theses proposals are either really. it's a tough thing to deal with

Putting pressure on asylum seekers, immigrants and so forth might conceivably be of some use, but requiring them to pass a test can serve no additional purpose except to exclude more people. If it is meant to provide an incentive for them to learn the language then it is a deeply immoral way to do so.

I think it is very important to make the distinction, as Duncan did earlier, between applications for asylum and applications for citizenship.

Refugees applying for asylum who can prove that they are in genuine fear for their lives (or some such turn of phrase) in their country of origin are given leave to stay here. There is plenty of argument about whether those tests are too tough or not tough enough, or whether they are properly applied, but in any case refugees who meet those requirements will not have to pass examinations, take oaths or learn English.

Presumably if the situation in their country of origin changes so that it becomes safe they would want to return, as many Kosovans did, or apply for citizenship if they wish to remain permanently.

People applying for citizenship are in a different situation. They are not fleeing for their lives, they are voluntarily coming here to live permanently and presumably intend to take their place in British society as pernament members of that society. I don't think it is terribly unreasonable to ask people in that situation to learn the basics of the language and culture of the country they intend to make their home.

That is not to say that they should not be encouraged to keep their own culture and language alive, nor should they be asked to do more than the basic level needed to get by alone if necessary.

I think that oaths are a waste of time, though. They really are rather meaningless.

Oaths are far from meaningless: you can get banged up for seven years if you break your oath while testifying in judicial proceedings. When it comes to acquiring citizenship, you're entering into a contract under which, in exchange for certain new privileges, you also earn the new right to be charged with treason, which in essence is the breaking of your (currently unspoken) oath of allegiance to the state. It never hurts to get these legal technicalities out in the open, particularly when failure to observe them will result in the death penalty.

By the way, any adult wishing to become a British citizen already has to take an oath of allegiance (I don't know whether they have to say it, or just sign it). All Blunkett is proposing is to turn this into a ceremonial affair.

To my mind the most interesting part of this particular "news" story is the complete and utter disregard for what Blunkett actual said by the media and by various minority groups with a particular axe to grind.

As far as I can teel Blunkett actuallly said something like:

Genuine asylum seekers and immigrants wishing to reside in the UK will contiue to be welcomed to this country with no strings attached as residents.

Asylum seekers and immigrants who then chose to seek full British citizenship, enfranchisement if you will, and thus the right to vote in elections, stand for public office, etc will be encouraged to learn about the culture of Britain, the language of Britain and take an oath of allegiance to Britain.

Why do the media engage in this kind of misdirection? I have no doubt that the far right wing, and minority ethnic groups, will jump on this story and blow it out of all proportion, once more fanning the flames of racism ON BOTH SIDES.

When visiting the USA, you have to fill in a form and sign it. As far as I remember, one of the questions on the form is "Have you ever been involved in terrorist activity?". Another one is "Have you ever attempted to undermine the government of the US?".

Duh!

I can think of a fair few US Presidents who might have trouble answering those...

Those forms seemed pointless. They seem especially pointless when you're tired and very late for your flight.

The thing that struck me, is that there is no definition of what the questions mean. Would attending an anti-war protest, or burning a flag, count as undermining the US government?