The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
^The current system seems fair to me:

Requirements for naturalisation as a British citizen

The requirements for naturalisation as a British citizen depend on whether one is married to a British citizen or not.

For those married to a British citizen the applicant must:

* hold indefinite leave to remain in the UK (or an equivalent such as Right of Abode or Irish citizenship)
* have lived legally in the UK for three years
* show sufficient knowledge of life in the UK, either by passing the Life in the United Kingdom test or by attending combined English language and citizenship classes. Proof of this must be supplied with one's application for naturalisation. Exemption for this and the language requirement (see below) is normally granted for those aged 65 or over, and may be granted to those aged between 60 and 65.
* meet specified English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic language competence standards. Those who pass the Life in the UK test are deemed to meet English language requirements.

For those not married to a British citizen the requirements are

* five years legal residence in the UK
* indefinite leave to remain or equivalent must have been held for 12 months
* the applicant must intend to continue to live in the UK or work overseas for the UK government or a British corporation or association.
* the same language and knowledge of life in the UK standards apply as for those married to British citizens

source


Infact, I believe in America you only have to live in the USA for three years (that is if you are not married to an American) before you are entitled to apply for America naturalisation.
Reply 41
yes but "indefinate leave to remain" is granted far too much, i mean look at all those bogus aslym seekers and somalians.

I think there should be 3 levels.

Tourist/Business Visa
Immigrant - entitled to NHS and for under 18 education. Thats it.
British. Entitled to everything.

To move from Immigrant to British should take longer and be harder to do. You should not be able to come to britain and bypass the immigrant stage unless you are married to a brit.
Zebedee
yes but "indefinate leave to remain" is granted far too much, i mean look at all those bogus aslym seekers and somalians.

I think there should be 3 levels.

Tourist/Business Visa
Immigrant - entitled to NHS and for under 18 education. Thats it.
British. Entitled to everything.

To move from Immigrant to British should take longer and be harder to do. You should not be able to come to britain and bypass the immigrant stage unless you are married to a brit.



Oh wow, and you know they're bogus because you're an expert, yes?

And why of course...Somalia has always been on of the most stable and safe countries of the world, hasn't it?:rolleyes:
Zebedee
To move from Immigrant to British should take longer and be harder to do. You should not be able to come to britain and bypass the immigrant stage unless you are married to a brit.
Cue a massive increase in visa-marriages. Good one.
Reply 44
I'm surprised there's such a debate as I would've thought it's pretty clear that British families should be given priority.

I believe that families who's been paying taxes and living in the community all their lives should have priority over families who've decided to move to the UK and can't actually get their own accommodation. If people decide to come to the UK, they should be able to support themselves. If they can't support themselves, then it's their problem for not being sufficiently prepared beforehand.

(Let me say that I'm no BNP-supporter, I'm mixed race, and have grown up in 6 different countries.)
Thudalena
this is ****ing dumb.

I'll give you an example: my dad's brother lives in a council house, he was in the army, he fought in afghanistan for britain and now some bureaucratic tossers wanna take his house away from him and his family? they can go **** themselves tbh don't give me this crap about british heritage.

many new immigrants who get council houses hopefully their kids will do well, leave the house, go to uni, get out of the cycle, pay back a bunch in taxes. my dad has more than paid for the years he spent in a council house. that's what britain supposedly says it does don't it? offers a chance to people to come here and better themselves. take that away you won't solve a thing, you'll just increase poverty for many many people thereby decreasing their chances of ever getting out of that cycle.

BUILD MORE: replace the ones sold off after thatcher.


In the long run, government subsidised accomodation does more harm than good. It's likely that your uncle's situation is the legacy of this sort of policy.
Reply 46
There are far too many people in this country who think they have an automatic right to a comfortable lifestyle, when really there are plenty of "native" Brits who lierally do nothing i.e. They don't work, or contribute in any positive way to society at all, yet just because they are natives they deserve a house more than a hardworking Asian migrant family? Absolutely noway!
Reply 47
Agent Smith
I'm not sure you realise the ramifications of what you're saying here. It boils down to claiming that children are the property of their parents.


reductio ad absurdum
Reply 48
mizfissy815
Oh wow, and you know they're bogus because you're an expert, yes?

And why of course...Somalia has always been on of the most stable and safe countries of the world, hasn't it?:rolleyes:


Bogus because they should get asylum in the nearest safe country, which is evidently not us. They are just choosing the uk because its better than going to ethiopia. Opportunisim.

Yeh, i can hardly believe theres a debate on this either, but TSR has a lot of happy-clappy liberals at the moment.
Zebedee

Yeh, i can hardly believe theres a debate on this either, but TSR has a lot of happy-clappy liberals at the moment.


They don't care because they will never be in the situation where they have to go into council housing. I'm alright jack, let the working class rot.
Zebedee
Bogus because they should get asylum in the nearest safe country, which is evidently not us. They are just choosing the uk because its better than going to ethiopia. Opportunisim.

Yeh, i can hardly believe theres a debate on this either, but TSR has a lot of happy-clappy liberals at the moment.


And yes, Ethiopia always welcomed Somalis with open arms, right? :rolleyes:
Ethiopia has almost 5 million Somalis as it is, and AFAIK they have pretty much stopped taking anyone else in. Not to mention, of course, that Ethiopia has its own problems which include sever poverty in many places and lack of proper health services which leave much of their own population Ethiopians and refugees alike, in a bit of a humanitarian crisis.
And we all know how Kenya likes to deport Somalis in refugee camps occasionally.


If choosing to flee to a country that would actually give them better/actual life to one that wouldn’t give them anything and make them live in the same situation they fled from (+/- the occasional hand grenades/knife attacks/machine guns..etc) makes them opportunists- then so be it…I don’t anyone of them would mind that label.
Reply 51
gas_panic!
They don't care because they will never be in the situation where they have to go into council housing. I'm alright jack, let the working class rot.


But I'm alright Jack!

Seriously though, there are alot of people who are victims of their own behaviour - not paying attention in school, being too lazy to get a job etc. They seem to believe that they have some divine right to have the state and taxpayers to provide for them. And this is what would happen if British applications get priority. An abled fit 25 year old will be given a council house over a family of four people or more who happen to be immigrants (even though they have been given the right to stay here indefinitely). I think this is wrong, if the state is insistence on keeping its socialist policies then it should provide it for people on the basis of needs rather than background.

British families should DEFINATELY get priority for council housing. Immigrants choose to live here so they can make their own way forward.

Zebedee's idea about 'Immigrant - entitled to NHS and for under 18 education. Thats it.' was pretty good if you ask me.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that it is fair to be forced to pay for housing for these people. Fair enough, as stated before there are many Bone-idle British citizens who expect to be served by the state. But the same does also apply to many immigrants as well dd1989...
riux
Fair enough, as stated before there are many Bone-idle British citizens who expect to be served by the state. But the same does also apply to many immigrants as well dd1989...


Erm i'll think you'll find according to TSR cliche #142: Immigrants are all hard working while the white working class are lazy scum.
Reply 54
Yes, us Socialists are well known for disliking the working class...
gas_panic!
Erm i'll think you'll find according to TSR cliche #142: Immigrants are all hard working while the white working class are lazy scum.


Actually given the number of votes for yes, it seems more of a - "All the white working class are hard-working people and all immigrants are lazy scum'

Technically everyone who voted no, most likely believe that it council houses should be given based on need and not nationality. That doesn't imply anything…if the white working class British family needs it more than an immigrant one then so be it.

Voting yes, however, does imply the above mentioned 'cliche'.
gas_panic!
They don't care because they will never be in the situation where they have to go into council housing. I'm alright jack, let the working class rot.


And you don't care because the chance of you ever being a needy asylum seeker is far less likely than a liberal on TSR ever looking for a council house.

I've lived in a council house for years, so don't lump everyone in together because you believe the people who defend the allocation of council houses on need rather than nationality are all doing so in order on principle.
Reply 57
Zebedee
yes but "indefinate leave to remain" is granted far too much, i mean look at all those bogus aslym seekers and somalians.

That's borderline racism....in fact, it IS racism.
Reply 58
mizfissy815
And yes, Ethiopia always welcomed Somalis with open arms, right? :rolleyes:
Ethiopia has almost 5 million Somalis as it is, and AFAIK they have pretty much stopped taking anyone else in. Not to mention, of course, that Ethiopia has its own problems which include sever poverty in many places and lack of proper health services which leave much of their own population Ethiopians and refugees alike, in a bit of a humanitarian crisis. And we all know how Kenya likes to deport Somalis in refugee camps occasionally.


Wah, wah wah. How does this mean i have some sort of obligation to pay my taxes to feed these people? britains not a charity and to be quite frank these people can sort out their own problems thousands of miles away.

If choosing to flee to a country that would actually give them better/actual life to one that wouldn’t give them anything and make them live in the same situation they fled from (+/- the occasional hand grenades/knife attacks/machine guns..etc) makes them opportunists- then so be it…I don’t anyone of them would mind that label.


No, if i were in their position i would probably do the same. They are getting a good deal, the british taxpayer is being rimmed.

Again, the problem isn't so much the idea that at british citizens should get equal benefits (i support this,,, i think). But that these people should not be british citizens at all.
Reply 59
Socrates
That's borderline racism....in fact, it IS racism.


You idiot, that is NOT racism. I don't think they are legitimate asylym seekers, neither are the people that hop the tunnel fence in france.

Racism would be saying that a race was superior/inferior to another. I did not do that.

I can't believe you warned be for totally valid opinion, this forum is biased beyond belief.

Latest