What's new

Immigrants will have to prove patriotism to get British passport

Mig-29

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
547
Reaction score
0
London, Aug. 2 (ANI): In a bid to secure British passport, immigrants will have to prove their patriotism for UK under a new citizenship system.

Under the new set of rules to be announced by Home Secretary Alan Johnson on Monday, foreigners will be penalised for what is deemed "unBritish" behaviour.

According to Home Office sources, "unBritish" behaviour would cover unpatriotic acts like protesting against British troops, News of the world reports.

"Points could be deducted for those who fail to integrate into British life. This would be anti-social behaviour. Basically, act like a yob and you won't get through to the probationary citizenship stage," they said.

Applicants would also be denied passports if they have a history of anti-social behaviour - even if they have never been convicted.

Tough new rules mean it would take up to ten years to get a passport.

A separate system was introduced last year under which immigrants have to earn points - based on skills and qualifications - to be allowed to stay here.

Currently they have to work here for five years as a temporary resident before they are handed one.

"You could be looking at up to 10 years to get a passport and this new points system will make it easier to turn down those we don't think Britain needs," sources said.

Recently, Johnson had said that he wanted a tougher system for citizenship in order to control swelling immigrant population.

"I am determined not to have an open borders policy. My citizenship proposals will require people earn points for, among other things, their skills, job and qualifications. Bad behaviour will be penalised," he said. (ANI)

Immigrants will have to prove patriotism to get British passport - Yahoo! India News
 
. . . .
This rule only applies for the people who are here on HSMP.(Highly Skilled Migration Program).
 
.
And what about Pakistanis of UK. :toast_sign:

In case you don't know, the natives of Americas are often called "Indians" (note, this is NOT the same as India's Indians). That's why I said "aboriginal Indians".

In North America these terms are often synomous:

Indian = First Nation = Aboriginals = Natives != Hindus
 
.
U.S. needs similar rules.

Also like to add, for all those White Americans who complain about "illegals" from Mexico --- LEARN HISTORY!!! California, Nevada, New Mexico & Texas was Mexico's but was STOLEN through WAR. So the real "illegals" are the White Americans not the Mexicanos! :agree:
 
.
In case you don't know, the natives of Americas are often called "Indians" (note, this is NOT the same as India's Indians). That's why I said "aboriginal Indians".

In North America these terms are often synomous:

Indian = First Nation = Aboriginals = Natives != Hindus

Ya, I am aware but was not aware with the current post (and its meaning). BTW Thanks. :cheers:
 
.
Also like to add, for all those White Americans who complain about "illegals" from Mexico --- LEARN HISTORY!!! California, Nevada, New Mexico & Texas was Mexico's but was STOLEN through WAR. So the real "illegals" are the White Americans not the Mexicanos! :agree:


The Mexican-American War was a war fought between the United States and Mexico between 1846 and 1848. It is also called the U.S.-Mexico War. In the U.S. it is also known as the Mexican War; in Mexico it is also known as the U.S. Intervention, the U.S. Invasion of Mexico, the United States War Against Mexico, and the War of Northern Aggression (this last name is more commonly used in the American South to refer to the American Civil War).

The war grew out of unresolved conflicts between Mexico and Texas. After having won its independence from Mexico in 1836, the Republic of Texas was annexed by the United States in 1845; however, the southern and western borders of Texas remained disputed during the Republic's lifetime. That same year tensions between the two countries over territory were raised when the United States government offered to pay off the Mexican debt to American settlers if Mexico allowed the U.S. to purchase the territories of Alta California and Nuevo México from Mexico.

The U.S. government claimed that the southern border of Texas was the Rio Grande; Mexico maintained it to be the Nueces River. President James K. Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to place troops between the two rivers. Taylor crossed the Nueces, ignoring Mexican demands that he withdraw, and marched south to the Rio Grande where he began to build Fort Brown. Fighting began on April 24, 1846 when Mexican cavalry captured one of the American detachments near the Rio Grande. After the border clash and battles at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma, Polk requested a declaration of war, announcing to Congress that the Mexicans had "invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil". The U.S. Congress declared war on May 13, 1846. Northerners and Whigs generally opposed the war while Southerners and Democrats tended to support it. Mexico declared war on May 23.

During the course of the war, around 13,000 American soldiers were killed. Of these deaths, only about 1.5% (~195) were from actual combat; the rest stemmed from disease and unsanitary conditions during the war. It is also estimated that, if post-war deaths from war-related causes are counted, the combined U.S. casualty rate for the war was very high, 30-40%. Mexican casualties remain somewhat of a mystery, and are estimated at 25,000.

A noteworthy, if controversially–remembered, group of fighters was Saint Patrick's Battalion (San Patricios), a group of several hundred immigrant soldiers (mostly from Ireland) who deserted the U.S. Army in favor of the Mexican side. According to one version of events, the Battalion deserted after having experienced harsh religious discrimination in the United States, and found common cause with Mexico due to its status as a largely Catholic country. Most would die in the conflict. Some were captured and hanged, reputedly by generals instructed to make sure that the last thing they saw was the lowering of the Mexican flag and the raising of the U.S. flag. Some historians claim that these men were actually prisoners of war and forced to fight for Mexico. Others argue that they were simply traitors and deserters. There are, in any event, a number of monuments to these soldiers in present-day Mexico.

Mexico lost much of its territory in the war, leaving it with a lasting bitterness towards the United States. Santa Anna fled to exile in Venezuela. General Porfirio Díaz, President of Mexico from 1877–1911, would later lament: "¡Pobre México! Tan lejos de Dios, y tan cerca de los Estados Unidos." ("Poor Mexico! So far from God, and so close to the United States.")

In the United States, victory in the war brought a surge in patriotism as the acquisition of new western lands – the country had also acquired the southern half of the Oregon Country in 1846 – seemed to fulfill citizens' belief in their country's Manifest Destiny. While Ralph Waldo Emerson rejected war "as a means of achieving America's destiny," he accepted that "most of the great results of history are brought about by discreditable means." The war made a national hero of Zachary Taylor, a Southern Whig, who was elected president in the election of 1848.


Also the boundaries of countries change through the years. Especially from wars. Look at a map of Europe from the 1800's to today and you will find huge changes. Pakistan and India are also two countries in a state of flux over border issues. I wonder how much they will change in the future.
 
.
no one should be just HANDED citizenship.. If you ought to become a citizen of that country you have to prove that you mean no harm to it and that you are patriotic towards it.. simple as that.. The UK has its share of loolaas who despise living with the Christian Infidels there yet wouldn't live anywhere else... its very shameful

5d935b9eb9b85dd3e740b2a244d7ba14.jpg






Europe is going down the Tank with people like these.. its about time they strengthen their immigration process. These ignorant bafoons beg to come to European countries and don't have an ounce of courtesy when they get their.. If you hate Europe so much and can't live with the idea of Freedom of Expression and conscience leave to where great land you came from and stop destroying European societies
 
Last edited:
.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the proposition - a passport is a favor any government does towards citizens - perhaps a better method may be to ensure citizens and would be citizens understand the society they want to be a part of.

Why not prove their "patriotism" by spending time in the armed forces?

Maybe Patriotism is the wrong criteria - it's defintion can vary, and it seems to infringe on the freedom of conscience. There may be better ways than this.

Below is a book review you may find of interest and worthy of further exploration:


August 2, 2009
Strangers in the Land
By FOUAD AJAMI
Skip to next paragraph
REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN EUROPE

Immigration, Islam, and the West

By Christopher Caldwell

422 pp. Doubleday. $30
A departure and a return: In the legend of Moorish Spain, Boabdil, the last Muslim ruler of Granada, is said to have paused on a ridge for a final glimpse of the realm he had just surrendered to the Castilians. Henceforth, the occasion, and the place, would be known as El Último Suspiro del Moro, The Moor’s Last Sigh. The date was Jan. 2, 1492.

More than five centuries later, on March 11, 2004, there would be a “Moorish” return. In the morning rush hour, 10 bombs tore through four commuter trains in Madrid, killing more than 200 people and wounding some 1,500, in the deadliest terror attack in Europe since World War II. This was not quite a Muslim reconquista of the Iberian peninsula, but a circle was closed, and Islam was, once again, a matter of Western Europe.

In his “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe,” Christopher Caldwell, a meticulous journalist who writes for The New York Times Magazine and other publications, gives this subject its most sustained and thoughtful treatment to date. The question of Islam in Europe has occasioned calls of alarm about “Eurabia,” as well as works of evasion and apology by those who insist Islam is making its peace with European norms. Caldwell’s account is subtle, but quite honest and forthright in its reading of this history. “Islam is a magnificent religion that has also been, at times over the centuries, a glorious and generous culture. But, all cant to the contrary, it is in no sense Europe’s religion and it is in no sense Europe’s culture,” he writes.

It hadn’t taken long for Islam to make its new claim on Europe. Caldwell’s numbers give away the problem: “In the middle of the 20th century,” he tells us, “there were virtually no Muslims in Western Europe.” Now there are more than 15 million, including 5 million in France, 4 million in Germany and 2 million in Britain.

The native populations in Western Europe hadn’t voted to have the Turks and the Moroccans in Amsterdam, the Kurds in Sweden, the Arabs in London and the Pakistanis and Indians in Bradford and West Yorkshire. The post-World War II economic boom, and labor shortages, brought the immigrants, and they put down roots in their surroundings. In time, labor immigration “gave way to refugee immigration and to immigration aimed at reunifying (and forming) families. . . . Admitting immigrants changed from an economic program to a moral duty.”

A fault line opened in European society. On one side were those keen to keep their world whole and theirs; on the other was elite opinion, insisting on the inevitability and legitimacy of the new immigration. For their part, the new arrivals, timid at first, grew expansive in the claims they made. This was odd: they had fled the fire, and the failure, of their ancestral lands, but they brought the fire with them. Political Islam had risen on its home turf in the Middle East and North Africa, in South Asia, but a young generation in Europe gave its allegiance to the new Islamist radicalism. Emancipated women had shed the veil in Egypt and Turkey and Iran in the 1920s; there are Muslim women now asserting their right to wear the burqa in Paris.

The European welfare state tempted and aided the new Islamism. Two-thirds of the French imams are on welfare. It was hard for Europeans, Caldwell writes, to know whether these bold immigrants were desperate wards or determined invaders, keen on imposing their will on societies given to moral relativism and tolerance. In Caldwell’s apt summation, the flood of migration brought with it “militants, freeloaders and opportunists.”

The militants took the liberties of Europe as a sign of moral and political abdication. They included “activists” now dreaming of imposing the Shariah on Denmark and Britain. There were also warriors of the faith, in storefront mosques in Amsterdam and London, openly sympathizing with the enemies of the West. And there were second-generation immigrants who owed no allegiance to the societies of Europe.

A study by Britain’s House of Commons of the July 7, 2005, bombings against London’s Underground caught the hostility of the new Islamism to the idea of assimilation, to the principle of nationality itself. Three of the four bombers were second-generation British citizens born in West Yorkshire. The fourth, who was born in Jamaica and brought to England as an infant, was a convert to Islam. Mohammad Sidique Khan, age 30, was the oldest of the group. He “appeared to others,” the report notes, “as a role model to young people.” Shehzad Tanweer, age 22, was said to have led a “balanced life.” He owned a red Mercedes, and enjoyed fashionable hairstyles and designer clothing. The evening before the bombings, he had played cricket in a local park.

Years earlier, the legendary theorist of the Islamists, the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, had written of the primacy of Islam: we may carry their nationalities, he observed, but we belong to our religion. The assailants from West Yorkshire, and the radical Muslims from Denmark who, after a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Muhammad in 2005, traveled through Islamic lands agitating against the country that had given them home and asylum, were witnesses to the truth of Qutb’s dictum.

“The guest is sacred, but he may not tarry,” Hans Magnus Enzensberger writes in a set of remarks that Caldwell cites with approval. Many of Europe’s “guests” have overstayed their welcome. They live on the seam: the old world of Islam is irretrievable and can no longer contain their lives; the new world of modernity is not fully theirs. They agitate against the secular civilization of the West, but they are drawn to its glamour and its success.

In the way of exiles, once on safe ground they tell stories about the old lands. The telling speaks of Damascus as bathed with light, and the sea by Tunis and Algiers and Agadir as a piece of singular beauty. In its original habitat, there could be an honest reckoning with Islam. Men and women could wrestle with the limits it places on them; they would weigh, in that timeless manner, the balance between fidelity to the faith and the yearning for freedom. But it isn’t easy in Amsterdam or Stockholm. There, the faith is identity, and the faith is complete and sharpened like a weapon.

It wasn’t always so. Little more than four decades ago, when I left Lebanon for the United States, I, and others like me, accepted the rupture in our lives. I knew there would be no imams and no mosques awaiting me in the New World. I was not traveling in quest of all that. I was in my late teens, I accepted the “differentness” of the new country. News of Lebanon rarely reached me, air travel was infrequent and costly, I lost years of my family’s life. I needed no tales of the old country.

Nowadays, air travel is commonplace, satellite television channels from Dubai and Qatar reach the immigrants in their new countries, preachers and prayer leaders are on the move, carrying a portable version of the faith. We are to celebrate this new movement of peoples, even as it strips nations of what is unique to them. It goes by the name of globalization. It makes those who oppose it seem like nativists at odds with the new order of things.

It is a tribute to Caldwell that he has not oversold this story, that he does not see the Muslim immigrants conquering the old continent and running away with it. There is poignancy enough in what he tells us. It is neither wholly pretty, nor banal, this new tale of Islam in the West.

Fouad Ajami teaches at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and is a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author of “The Foreigner’s Gift.”
 
.
I recall that some years ago...the British foreign minister under Tony Blair was aghast to find Indian Brits(2nd and third gen) supporting the Indian team against England....I mean England is supposed to be YOUR team now...he gave a public speech and was widely condemned.
he wasn't wrong was he?
 
.
Paritosh

It's rather complicated isn't it - maybe we ought not think of it in simple terms or reduce it to simple terms - 3rd gen indians cheering for a Indian team in a game is very different from 3rd gen Indians fighting in a war against the UK or actively supporting groups engaged in killing UK citizens for whatever reason.
 
.
@Muse

I read your article and its good but it does not solve the underlying problem of immigration. Serving in the military is an option that anyone would take to become a citizen of that country. I like some ideas of limiting protests

"Applicants would also be denied passports if they have a history of anti-social behaviour - even if they have never been convicted." Sounds fair enough.. if your gonna go on a protest defaming the countries troops by acting like an azz than they have every right to revoke your status..

Now i am ALL for criticism as long as its done in a proper manner, like writing an article to the Times, or going on television and giving proper constructive criticism, even a peace rally is ok but going in a protest defaming and shouting slogans is not going to help. Freedom of expression does not mean that you become a hooligan, you are free to express your thoughts but atleast do so in a sophistiacted manner.

The Islamic protests in Britian for e.g are nothing but close to embarrasing. There is a difference between protesting and chanting slogans of death and destruction
 
Last edited:
.
no one should be just HANDED citizenship.. If you ought to become a citizen of that country you have to prove that you mean no harm to it and that you are patriotic towards it.. simple as that.. The UK has its share of loolaas who despise living with the Christian Infidels there yet wouldn't live anywhere else... its very shameful

5d935b9eb9b85dd3e740b2a244d7ba14.jpg






Europe is going down the Tank with people like these.. its about time they strengthen their immigration process. These ignorant bafoons beg to come to European countries and don't have an ounce of courtesy when they get their.. If you hate Europe so much and can't live with the idea of Freedom of Expression and conscience leave to where great land you came from and stop destroying European societies

Yes, it is despicable! Just like the Europeans/Whites who come to Asia, Arab, Africa, Americas and have no loyalty nor good will towards the native locals -- instead wish harm and exploit those poor people. I remember those Britons who came to China during the Beijing Games and did the EXACT SAME THING! Despicable!!! :agree:

It's as simple as this: The inevitable is a multipolar world BECAUSE everyone single human being counts. It's about time the (1) Jewish Supremacists + (2) White Supremacists + (3) Muslim Supremacists ACCEPT HUMAN EQUALITY!

Imagine in USA where only 65% are white but 99+% in politics and power are White, the remaining 1% are non-white PUPPETS. Even worse in a nation like Mexico the native population which comprise 98%, yet 99% in power are white (or mainly white-mix). HOW CAN THAT BE DEMOCRACY??? How can that be human rights when not all humans are considered equal??? ANSWER: It's not. Until true & fair representative democracy exists, until corruption (and supremacists) are rooted out - our world will suffer! :guns:
 
Last edited:
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom