Should would-be citizens have to learn the National Anthem?

Quote:

---

Theresa May 'planning changes to immigrant test'

Home Secretary Theresa May is reported to be planning changes to the test taken by foreign nationals who wish to become British citizens.

The Life in the United Kingdom test was introduced by Labour in 2005.

The Sunday Times says immigrants will be told "historically the UK is a Christian country".

The revised version will focus less on the practicalities of daily living in Britain and require more knowledge of British history and achievements.

Inventions and discoveries
The paper says immigrants will also have to learn the first verse of the national anthem before they can become UK citizens.

Mrs May is understood to have scrapped sections of the test which dealt with claiming benefits and the Human Rights Act.

Instead potential immigrants will be expected to learn about Byron, the Duke of Wellington, Shakespeare and other historical and cultural figures.

The new version of the handbook, expected to be issued in the autumn, will include sections about key battles, such as Trafalgar, and British inventions and discoveries.

A Home Office spokesperson told the BBC: "Putting our culture and history at the heart of the citizenship test will help ensure those permanently settling can understand British life allowing them to properly integrate into our society."

The handbook is the basis of a 45-minute test which potential citizens can take at one of 90 centres around the UK.

Sultana Razia, who came to the UK from Bangladesh five years ago, has already failed the test once in her quest to become a British citizen. "If you want to live here, you have to know all the information - all the rules and the way of living here and the culture here," she told BBC News. "The test is important, it's quite hard but it's important."

Alp Mehmet, vice chairman of the Migration Watch think tank, welcomed the planned changes. "People are almost encouraged to see what they can get out of the country rather than what they can contribute," he told BBC News. "And I think that the emphasis moving towards people having an understanding of the country they're joining effectively - becoming citizens of - is absolutely right."

But Habib Mirza, who runs citizenship courses at BSGS College, in Whitechapel, east London, said proposed changes would represent "a massive barrier for anybody who wants to settle down in the United Kingdom, the vast majority of whom cannot speak English anyway".

"People who do speak English, who are born and brought up here, we would find it very, very difficult to pass so how will they pass?"

And he said asking people from non-Christian backgrounds to learn the National Anthem "might be against their religious beliefs, it might be against their personal beliefs" and it was therefore "unfair".

---

Highlighted two sections - one is that it is absurd that currently part of learning to be a citizen is making sure you understand how to get the most "benefits" you can off the State. Ask not what you can do for your country, but how much you can get from it? Ridiculous.

On the quote from Habib Mizra I have to say I have very, very little sympathy. I don't care if its a barrier for people who don't speak English, maybe they should try to make sure to learn to speak English before they become fully-fledged citizens then? As for learning the National Anthem - if the National Anthem is so abhorrent maybe become citizens of another nation then.

I'm an atheist republican and therefore God Save the Queen has never been my favourite anthem, I'd much rather something like Land of Hope and Glory or even Jerusalem though those are both religious too [very much so in the latter's case]. However it doesn't matter God Save the Queen is the British anthem and if you want to become a British citizen the least you can do is learn it. If you find it so utterly offensive, why become a citizen?

I would not expect to become a US citizen without learning the Star Spangled Banner, nor an Aussie without Advance Australia Fair [which I do know off by heart already from merely living there as a non-citizen].

What's so important about anthems and just what is so fantastic about disadvantaging new citizens by not helping them understand how their new society works? :bulb: learning how your society works is important. Learning the goddamned anthem is not as important. It is absurd to suggest that the latter is more important than the former.

You're forgetting that one doesn't take this test until living in the UK for something like half a decade. If they never bothered to learn anything about their adoptive country by then (except how to claim benefits!), what makes you think they will in the future? No country needs an ever-growing number of citizens who know nothing about their country. It's a recipe for disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

What's so important about anthems and just what is so fantastic about disadvantaging new citizens by not helping them understand how their new society works? :bulb: learning how your society works is important. Learning the goddamned anthem is not as important. It is absurd to suggest that the latter is more important than the former.

---

I lived in Australia for 7 years but never became an Aussie citizen*. There is a massive difference between emigrating and living temporarily in another nation and seeking to become a permanent citizen of that nation.

If you seek to become a part of the new nation - which is what taking citizenship as opposed to merely living there is - then you should take pride in it and that includes learning its history and its features like the anthem.

* In hindsight I view that as a major missed opportunity and mistake, though I was only a child at the time. I wish now I had dual citizenship, it would be nice to have the option of returning if I chose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

...I don't care if its a barrier for people who don't speak English, maybe they should try to make sure to learn to speak English before they become fully-fledged citizens then? As for learning the National Anthem - if the National Anthem is so abhorrent maybe become citizens of another nation then.

---

If speaking English is a requirement for citizenship, what do you do with people who are already citizens, but don't speak English or English is their second language? Are you so sure that All English know the national anthem anyway? :confused:

I can understand people wanting to change immigration laws, but I don't understand why they focus on language or anthem "tests" that many natural citizens probably couldn't pass themselves.

Regrettably the policies of Transportation have been frowned upon now centuries now so there's no real way to remove citizens who don't want to contribute to society. No reason we need to voluntarily give citizenship to people who don't even try though. It ought to be hard, you ought to have to try to become a citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Regrettably the policies of Transportation have been frowned upon now centuries now so there's no real way to remove citizens who don't want to contribute to society. No reason we need to voluntarily give citizenship to people who don't even try though. It ought to be hard, you ought to have to try to become a citizen.

---

I'm not familiar with the policies of Transportation...please explain.

Hey, have you noticed the number of professional singers hired for special events (Super Bowl, World Series, etc.) that can't sing our national anthem without fucking up the lyrics? And did you hear about the Olympic trials that played the wrong national anthem for the winner during the medals ceremony? :p

I think that being able to answer civics questions (structure of government, basic history, etc.) is far more important that 'cultural' things like the anthem. I'm not bothered by said civics questions being tough - even if a significant portion of actual citizens would have trouble passing the test without preparation. But I don't think that superfluous barriers to citizenship are worthwhile.

If my grandparents, who came to the US in their 60s, knowing no English and having a primary school education, can memorize the answers to a sufficient number of citizenship questions, I'm fairly sure just about anyone who's willing to put in some time and effort can do the same.

There are numerous failed and failing states, who have gotten to the point where they are now because of poor nation-building. To suggest that requiring immigrants to have some understanding of a country's identity is superfluous makes zero sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I'm not familiar with the policies of Transportation...please explain.

---

Google: Australia :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

If my grandparents, who came to the US in their 60s, knowing no English and having a primary school education, can memorize the answers to a sufficient number of citizenship questions, I'm fairly sure just about anyone who's willing to put in some time and effort can do the same.

There are numerous failed and failing states, who have gotten to the point where they are now because of poor nation-building. To suggest that requiring immigrants to have some understanding of a country's identity is superfluous makes zero sense.

---

Isn't our identity far more tied up in our history and system of government than our anthem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

What's so important about anthems and just what is so fantastic about disadvantaging new citizens by not helping them understand how their new society works? :bulb: learning how your society works is important. Learning the goddamned anthem is not as important. It is absurd to suggest that the latter is more important than the former.

---

This. I don't mind tests for immigrants, but the anthem? Meh. Half the people over here probably don't know the lyrics of our anthem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

This. I don't mind tests for immigrants, but the anthem? Meh. Half the people over here probably don't know the lyrics of our anthem.

---

I think the immigration test should focus on practical knowledge, street smarts, job smarts, the laws of the land etc.. and perhaps a brief background to establish some national pride.

Swiss people don't know their Anthem by heart, so it would be ridiculous to ask immigrants to learn it. Having a singing test to get citizen is a funny idea anyway. Will you have a judge and Simon Cowell will decide whether you pass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Swiss people don't know their Anthem by heart, so it would be ridiculous to ask immigrants to learn it. Having a singing test to get citizen is a funny idea anyway. Will you have a judge and Simon Cowell will decide whether you pass?

---

I doubt the singing is the issue; it's the words they probably need to know.

What's silly in the US, though, is that even though the Star Spangled Banner (at least the first verse) is pretty widely known culturally, it wasn't even our official anthem until pretty recently - 1931 IIRC. It also doesn't actually have that much to say about what makes America unique - most of the song spends its time describing a battle from two centuries ago that was of fairly minor import. The only even remotely relevant bit is the last line ('land of the free' and all). Britain's anthem is even less relevant.

There are national anthems that actually mean something to the country, but they are few and far between. If you push it, maybe the French anthem (it at least has historical significance vis-a-vis the Revolution). The closest that most anthems get is a vague martial call for freedom or some brief mentions of geography or flag. Oh, there are some countries that have anthems written with a little bit more thought to the country's founding/history (Israel, China, Liberia, Ireland, South Africa, etc.) but even these have little to add to a decent understanding of the history of one's host country. IMO, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Isn't our identity far more tied up in our history and system of government than our anthem?

---

I fail to see why we can't expect people to learn a minimal amount of both. There are government-sponsored programs for people to study for these exams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I doubt the singing is the issue; it's the words they probably need to know.

What's silly in the US, though, is that even though the Star Spangled Banner (at least the first verse) is pretty widely known culturally, it wasn't even our official anthem until pretty recently - 1931 IIRC. It also doesn't actually have that much to say about what makes America unique - most of the song spends its time describing a battle from two centuries ago that was of fairly minor import. The only even remotely relevant bit is the last line ('land of the free' and all). Britain's anthem is even less relevant.

There are national anthems that actually mean something to the country, but they are few and far between. If you push it, maybe the French anthem (it at least has historical significance vis-a-vis the Revolution). The closest that most anthems get is a vague martial call for freedom or some brief mentions of geography or flag. Oh, there are some countries that have anthems written with a little bit more thought to the country's founding/history (Israel, China, Liberia, Ireland, South Africa, etc.) but even these have little to add to a decent understanding of the history of one's host country. IMO, of course.

---

That's entirely irrelevant. A national anthem is a key aspect of a country's identity; it doesn't matter what the words in it are. And FYI, though it wasn't the official anthem of the US, the Star-Spangled Banner was arguably the most popular song in the US for nearly two century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

This. I don't mind tests for immigrants, but the anthem? Meh. Half the people over here probably don't know the lyrics of our anthem.

---

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, you can't kick out the people who are already citizens. That makes it all the more important to not increase the number of people who don't give a damn about their country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I doubt the singing is the issue; it's the words they probably need to know.

What's silly in the US, though, is that even though the Star Spangled Banner (at least the first verse) is pretty widely known culturally, it wasn't even our official anthem until pretty recently - 1931 IIRC. It also doesn't actually have that much to say about what makes America unique - most of the song spends its time describing a battle from two centuries ago that was of fairly minor import. The only even remotely relevant bit is the last line ('land of the free' and all). Britain's anthem is even less relevant.

There are national anthems that actually mean something to the country, but they are few and far between. If you push it, maybe the French anthem (it at least has historical significance vis-a-vis the Revolution). The closest that most anthems get is a vague martial call for freedom or some brief mentions of geography or flag. Oh, there are some countries that have anthems written with a little bit more thought to the country's founding/history (Israel, China, Liberia, Ireland, South Africa, etc.) but even these have little to add to a decent understanding of the history of one's host country. IMO, of course.

---

As far as patriotic anthems actually talking about the nation I think you can't get much better than Advance Australia Fair - though one can definitely challenge some of the claims in it that's beside the point. It was only made official national anthem in '84.

Lyrics:

Australians all let us rejoice
For we are young and free
We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea:
Our land abounds in nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare,
In history's page let every stage
Advance Australia fair,
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia fair.

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross,
We'll toil with hearts and hands,
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands,
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share,
With courage let us all combine
To advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia fair.

Either way though, even if one can over-analyse an anthem and say that lyrically it is not the most fitting any nation is free to change its anthem whenever they want - but a would-be citizen wanting to join it should learn it and feel a sense of pride with it. It is part of what goes with the country and that is what should matter, it is not the anthem itself but what it represents. There is a reason the anthems are played at sporting events, medal ceremonies etc

PS off-topic but query for Loki and wiggin - There are regular calls here for England to get its own official anthem (we normally use God Save The Queen but that's the UK's not England's). At the Commonwealth Games we now use Jerusalem as that topped a popular poll to find out what we should use and that regularly is one of the favourites to become our national anthem. One issue oft raised is that the Israeli's would be offended if we used Jerusalem as our official national anthem, do you think that would be an issue? Or would they shrug their shoulders and not care?

Jerusalem Lyrics:

And did those feet in ancient time.
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land

I could see it causing problems with some circles in Israel. Not sure how much of a big deal they'd make though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I doubt the singing is the issue; it's the words they probably need to know.

---

No signing? Honestly? :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, you can't kick out the people who are already citizens. That makes it all the more important to not increase the number of people who don't give a damn about their country.

---

Damn the Spanish must hate their country.

Actually, they do. Spain has one of the weakest national identities in Western Europe, is incredibly decentralized, and there are constant demands for more autonomy or outright independence...

I agree with wiggin and minx - the national anthem is not relevant to the day to day life and values of British society. Far better questions would be:

"You're going to force your daughter to get married against her will to some random man in Pakistan. Is this awesome Y/N?"

"Gays, do they have rights?"

"Your daughter is becoming westernised. Is it ok to kill her? Throw acid in her face? What did you think would happen when you came to a western country, exactly?"

"My religion says one thing, the law of the land says another: which wins?"

and

"Is the air of England too pure for a slave to breath? Does everyone who come here become free? Is everyone who comes to this island entitled to the protection of English law whatever oppression they may have suffered and whatever may be their gender or colour of their skin?"

These are more relevant matters than memorising a few lines of frankly shitty lyrics.

And how would the answers differ if they were to immigrate to France or Belgium? You're not providing any reason at all for these people to feel close to England/Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

one is that it is absurd that currently part of learning to be a citizen is making sure you understand how to get the most "benefits" you can off the State. Ask not what you can do for your country, but how much you can get from it? Ridiculous.

---

Whats ridiculous is that you don't see how advertising to and training new citizens to use the resources that are legally allowed to them is likely the most cost effective and socially responsible thing for your country to do.

Now if your society would rather mooch off of support, or the programs are setup to encourage long term slouths, well thats a different problem than what is being addressed by the ones handling immigrants

Quote:

---

I would not expect to become a US citizen without learning the Star Spangled Banner, nor an Aussie without Advance Australia Fair [which I do know off by heart already from merely living there as a non-citizen].

---

Most naturally born americans couldn't recite the Star Spangled Banner. being forced to memorize a song is completely useless.

I'd argue most of US history is rather useless for immigrants hoping to become citizens. Hell, most lower grade history education programs barely go into or past our own civil war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I doubt the singing is the issue; it's the words they probably need to know.

What's silly in the US, though, is that even though the Star Spangled Banner (at least the first verse) is pretty widely known culturally, it wasn't even our official anthem until pretty recently - 1931 IIRC. It also doesn't actually have that much to say about what makes America unique - most of the song spends its time describing a battle from two centuries ago that was of fairly minor import. The only even remotely relevant bit is the last line ('land of the free' and all). Britain's anthem is even less relevant.

There are national anthems that actually mean something to the country, but they are few and far between. If you push it, maybe the French anthem (it at least has historical significance vis-a-vis the Revolution). The closest that most anthems get is a vague martial call for freedom or some brief mentions of geography or flag. Oh, there are some countries that have anthems written with a little bit more thought to the country's founding/history (Israel, China, Liberia, Ireland, South Africa, etc.) but even these have little to add to a decent understanding of the history of one's host country. IMO, of course.

---

You think you have it silly? I'm of the persuasion that it's a God damned crime Finlandia isn't the national anthem of Finland. It is an absolutely stunning, evocative piece of classical music, but instead we have a stupid drinking song as our anthem. Fucking Svedes ruin everything they touch :sour:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Whats ridiculous is that you don't see how advertising to and training new citizens to use the resources that are legally allowed to them is likely the most cost effective and socially responsible thing for your country to do.

Now if your society would rather mooch off of support, or the programs are setup to encourage long term slouths, well thats a different problem than what is being addressed by the ones handling immigrants

---

No, what is most cost-effective and socially responsible is for people to support themselves. If I was PM I'd open up the borders but deny benefits to anyone who hasn't already been paying taxes for at least 5 years - and that includes 16+ year old citizens. Once you've contributed to society, then you can start claiming. If an immigrant can't support themselves in the UK, they should feel free to return home and support themselves there. If a 16 year old can't support themselves, they can feel free to get a job or drain off mum and dad.

Quote:

---

Most naturally born americans couldn't recite the Star Spangled Banner. being forced to memorize a song is completely useless.

---

Who do you reckon has had more exposure to the Star Spangled Banner - natural born citizens going through 13 years of schooling, or new citizens expected to learn it once only.

Quote:

---

I'd argue most of US history is rather useless for immigrants hoping to become citizens. Hell, most lower grade history education programs barely go into or past our own civil war.

---

And do you think the bar for a new citizen should be LOWER than a lower-grade history program?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No, what is most cost-effective and socially responsible is for people to support themselves. If I was PM I'd [...] deny benefits to anyone who hasn't already been paying taxes for at least 5 years - and that includes 16+ year old citizens. Once you've contributed to society, then you can start claiming. If an immigrant can't support themselves in the UK, they should feel free to return home and support themselves there. If a 16 year old can't support themselves, they can feel free to get a job or drain off mum and dad.

---

This is one of those rare times when you and I seem to agree, even partly, about something :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You're forgetting that one doesn't take this test until living in the UK for something like half a decade. If they never bothered to learn anything about their adoptive country by then (except how to claim benefits!), what makes you think they will in the future? No country needs an ever-growing number of citizens who know nothing about their country. It's a recipe for disaster.

---

Agreed. However, "not knowing anthem" =/= "knowing nothing".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

If you seek to become a part of the new nation - which is what taking citizenship as opposed to merely living there is - then you should take pride in it and that includes learning its history and its features like the anthem.

---

Okay, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion even if it's just born out of pure nationalism, sentimentality and some desire to divide people into "worthy" and "unworthy" based on entirely unimportant and arbitrary criteria. For my part I'm happy if we get the chance to eg. instil some respect for human rights and societal values/norms and the like and give new citizens the basic knowledge required to live safely and productively in their new country. You know, so that they feel safe and cared for rather than feeling more disadvantaged and unsafe than even the most douchey native.

In a similar vein I prioritise knowledge of driving and road safety over knowledge of the anthem, in new drivers; I prioritise knowledge of medicine and how to be good to people over knowledge of the anthem, in a doctor; I'd prioritise knowledge of procedures, rules, regulations and safe practices in a new employee over knowledge of the anthem, etc etc. One might ask, "Why not both?" But that, to me, is not the right question to ask if you can actually justify the importance of knowing the anthem for a single test. And if you can't justify it then that's "why not both".

Still, I can see some value in attempting to understand one's new country by learning about where it's been/coming from. You know, some discussions about the colonial times, maybe the whole Orwellian transformation, the social problems, the riots, etc. Someone who understands all that and still wants to venture outside his home to take a damn' test must surely be sufficiently dedicated and worthy. That'd be a better test than knowing the anthem, even if it would also be a useless test of anything important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

You think you have it silly? I'm of the persuasion that it's a God damned crime Finlandia isn't the national anthem of Finland. It is an absolutely stunning, evocative piece of classical music, but instead we have a stupid drinking song as our anthem. Fucking Svedes ruin everything they touch :sour:

---

Vårt land, vårt land?

If so, it's a surprisingly loving song that's unfortunately a bit too long :downcast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No, what is most cost-effective and socially responsible is for people to support themselves. If I was PM I'd open up the borders but deny benefits to anyone who hasn't already been paying taxes for at least 5 years - and that includes 16+ year old citizens. Once you've contributed to society, then you can start claiming. If an immigrant can't support themselves in the UK, they should feel free to return home and support themselves there. If a 16 year old can't support themselves, they can feel free to get a job or drain off mum and dad.

---

Wow, you are a diehard asshole. With all the collapsing, oppressive, ruined, regimes on your side of the world, the best response you have to the people coming to your country is have pre-existing financial substance and education or GTFO? Absolulety zero understanding of how a country could invest in these people for a greater return later on? Zero understanding of how not supporting these people, who are already in your country, is only going to cause problems for your natural citizens?

WTF:bulb:

Quote:

---

Who do you reckon has had more exposure to the Star Spangled Banner - natural born citizens going through 13 years of schooling, or new citizens expected to learn it once only.

---

Only time I hear the star spangled banner is at monster truck rallies. I don't remember learning it, or singing it, in school (but I suspect at some point I did). The pledge is a different matter.

Quote:

---

And do you think the bar for a new citizen should be LOWER than a lower-grade history program?

---

I used that wording because students can decide to take classes in middle and high school that focses on America's history, but our citizens are more than capable of becoming functioning citizens without memorizing centuries of battles.

So I take it you'd abolish History lessons at schools then Minx?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Wow, you are a diehard asshole. With all the collapsing, oppressive, ruined, regimes on your side of the world, the best response you have to the people coming to your country is have pre-existing financial substance and education or GTFO? Absolulety zero understanding of how a country could invest in these people for a greater return later on? Zero understanding of how not supporting these people, who are already in your country, is only going to cause problems for your natural citizens?

WTF:bulb:

---

I believe that I'm being more generous than most of the public.

With "all the collapsing, oppressive, ruined regimes" across the world (not sure about my side of it specifically?) the response of most seems to be to close the borders.
I'd open the borders and welcome with open arms any poor and huddled masses who want to work hard and build themselves an opportunity. I would legalise anyone here, allow them to work rather than refusing them the rights to work as they're an "illegal immigrant" as is currently the case.

I would not however write a blank cheque for anyone who wants to come here. Why is that "diehard asshole"? Are we supposed to invite anyone and everyone from the entire world to come here as they choose with both an open border and a blank cheque for them all? You can't see any problems with that?

What is your solution for those currently in the "collapsing, oppresive, ruined regimes" who would love an opportunity to come here and graft and make a name for themselves but the border is closed to them? Asshole.

My other part of my "open borders" policy is that its a welcome to the law-abiding. Anyone who commits any crimes would after their sentence is served get a free one-way ticket back to where they came from with no right of return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Wow, you are a diehard asshole. With all the collapsing, oppressive, ruined, regimes on your side of the world, the best response you have to the people coming to your country is have pre-existing financial substance and education or GTFO? Absolulety zero understanding of how a country could invest in these people for a greater return later on? Zero understanding of how not supporting these people, who are already in your country, is only going to cause problems for your natural citizens?

WTF:bulb:

---

Nation states are not welfare agencies to the Third World. (Or the former Second, for that matter.) How much of an 'investment' is a society supposed to make towards people who have never seen a toilet bowl, or a hammer? What sort of time-table do you think we'll have on a return for that 'investment'?

I have absolutely zero understanding or sympathy to the idea that advanced, well-managed nation states should house, feed and educate gratis hordes of uncultured, wildly breeding non-contributors just because they have a nicer, milky coffee complexion.

Your logic seems, also, rather bass-ackwards. How exactly is taking in all these mongrels going to solve the Eurodämmerung? As Randy said, those capable of working in a highly technological society are more than welcome; more than half the people I work with are foreigners. But they've shown their worth by having advanced degrees and decent CVs. The Romany woman begging outside my door, however, is a completely worthless mouth that the Finnish state should categorically not feed. And if these, already in my country, worthless mouths begin making trouble for the Finnish populace, they should be shot. It isn't any more complicated than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I believe that I'm being more generous than most of the public.

With "all the collapsing, oppressive, ruined regimes" across the world (not sure about my side of it specifically?) the response of most seems to be to close the borders.
I'd open the borders and welcome with open arms any poor and huddled masses who want to work hard and build themselves an opportunity. I would legalise anyone here, allow them to work rather than refusing them the rights to work as they're an "illegal immigrant" as is currently the case.

---

But we aren't talking about the pubic, or closed borders. We are talking about current immigration policies. All you did here was suggest that you may be a slightly less diehard asshole than the rest of the UK public. Congrats?

It takes more than the ability or willingness to work in order to succeed. Especially when you're coming from an area that treated you as subhuman, or didn't have the resources for someone to reach that ability. It takes time. What are these people supposed to do as they wait for those first couple of paychecks? Where are they supposed to live (this is usually required before a job), what do they eat?

Quote:

---

I would not however write a blank cheque for anyone who wants to come here. Why is that "diehard asshole"? Are we supposed to invite anyone and everyone from the entire world to come here as they choose with both an open border and a blank cheque for them all? You can't see any problems with that?

---

No one mentioned a blank check, or even hinted at them.

I'm glad we cleared that up

Quote:

---

My other part of my "open borders" policy is that its a welcome to the law-abiding. Anyone who commits any crimes would after their sentence is served get a free one-way ticket back to where they came from with no right of return.

---

Which is the catch, cause your stance would sooner create prostitutes than educators, plumbers, firemen, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

But we aren't talking about the pubic, or closed borders. We are talking about current immigration policies. All you did here was suggest that you may be a slightly less diehard asshole than the rest of the UK public. Congrats?

It takes more than the ability or willingness to work in order to succeed. Especially when you're coming from an area that treated you as subhuman, or didn't have the resources for someone to reach that ability. It takes time. What are these people supposed to do as they wait for those first couple of paychecks? Where are they supposed to live (this is usually required before a job), what do they eat?

---

If someone doesn't have the finances to last a few weeks here, why are they coming? But if people want to choose to give to charities that help people for their first few weeks here then that's fine. I'm quite in favour of tax relief for charitable donations too, so the government can help there too.

Quote:

---

No one mentioned a blank check, or even hinted at them.

---

OK, so what's spending limit you put on the cheque per person then?

Quote:

---

Which is the catch, cause your stance would sooner create prostitutes than educators, plumbers, firemen, etc.

---

Well given that I believe prostitution should be legalised, I wouldn't deport for that. If the people coming over are as ignorant and uneducated as you are implying then why on earth would you want them to educators?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

So I take it you'd abolish History lessons at schools then Minx?

---

If you've read my post you should be able to realise that I'd much rather abolish anthem-lessons :o


But, in all honesty, I think I would like to cut down a little on history. Not because history is unimportant but rather because I'd like for most kids to get the time required for them to have a better understanding of fewer but more important parts of their country's history. That being said, time in school is limited and I wouldn't mind if some of those hours of history were instead dedicated to statistics, probability, personal finances and possibly practical psychology. Anthems? Nah.

I never had an anthem lesson, but we did have one lesson a week dedicated to the School Assembly and we sang the anthem at Assembly. Do you have an objection to that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I never had an anthem lesson, but we did have one lesson a week dedicated to the School Assembly and we sang the anthem at Assembly. Do you have an objection to that?

---

Nope, but if someone'd threatened to fail or expel you for failing to sing the anthem, or maybe just suspend you, or say you can't eat in the school cafeteria, well I'd have had a problem with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I fail to see why we can't expect people to learn a minimal amount of both. There are government-sponsored programs for people to study for these exams.

---

If I was making up a list of things people should know to 'get' the United States, our anthem would be laughably far down the list, and many other things not included on the citizenship tests would be higher on the list. Why the obsession with a largely irrelevant song? It's completely unimportant from the perspective of integration.

Quote:

---

That's entirely irrelevant. A national anthem is a key aspect of a country's identity; it doesn't matter what the words in it are. And FYI, though it wasn't the official anthem of the US, the Star-Spangled Banner was arguably the most popular song in the US for nearly two century.

---

I respectfully disagree that this is a key aspect of our identity. I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

As far as patriotic anthems actually talking about the nation I think you can't get much better than Advance Australia Fair - though one can definitely challenge some of the claims in it that's beside the point. It was only made official national anthem in '84.

---

Yeah, I was thinking about mentioning it. Bit of a manifest destiny kind of feel to it, but definitely more relevant than many anthems out there.

Quote:

---

Either way though, even if one can over-analyse an anthem and say that lyrically it is not the most fitting any nation is free to change its anthem whenever they want - but a would-be citizen wanting to join it should learn it and feel a sense of pride with it. It is part of what goes with the country and that is what should matter, it is not the anthem itself but what it represents. There is a reason the anthems are played at sporting events, medal ceremonies etc

---

Like with Loki above, I disagree. We're trying to turn knowledge of an anthem into some sort of litmus test or lower bar for patriotism, when it simply isn't. I want my fellow citizens to have pride in the Constitution, in the principles of freedom (whether personal, political, or economic), in our place in the world. I couldn't care less what they think about our (admittedly awful) anthem.

Quote:

---

PS off-topic but query for Loki and wiggin - There are regular calls here for England to get its own official anthem (we normally use God Save The Queen but that's the UK's not England's). At the Commonwealth Games we now use Jerusalem as that topped a popular poll to find out what we should use and that regularly is one of the favourites to become our national anthem. One issue oft raised is that the Israeli's would be offended if we used Jerusalem as our official national anthem, do you think that would be an issue? Or would they shrug their shoulders and not care?

---

*shrugs* I'm sure you'll be able to find someone who would be offended by anything, but I doubt Israelis (or Palestinians, for that matter) would take much issue with it. It's hardly laying a claim to Jerusalem, it's clearly just metaphorical. In fact, this hymn is hardly the first or last time when Anglos have viewed their homeland through a Biblical lens. Very obviously in the US, it's clear that many of the English-speaking immigrants in the 17th/18th century felt very strongly that they were coming to a promised land, and the place names (and written documents) demonstrate that very well. It became even more extreme in the genesis of the LDS church, of course. In the UK, the curious belief in 'British Israel' is more peculiar and amusing than anything else, but it also attests to this idea of the homeland as a transplanted Israel.

Most Israelis are completely unaware of this reality, but when they are apprised of it, they are mostly mildly amused or interested, not offended. The two potential groups who could be offended are either Greater Israel zealot types or the Ultra-Orthodox. Since they're both a bit hard to predict, I don't know for sure how they'd react, but I'm inclined to think that the Greater Israel types would realize it's metaphorical and ignore it, and the Ultra-Orthodox probably wouldn't even care.

If that had been the anthem during the Mandate, though, it probably would have had a much more significant import and symbolism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Nope, but if someone'd threatened to fail or expel you for failing to sing the anthem, or maybe just suspend you, or say you can't eat in the school cafeteria, well I'd have had a problem with that.

---

Not singing - not just causing a disruption - was against school policy and grounds for detention. A Jewish friend of mine was given detention because he left his Hymn Book at home and didn't bring it to [the school's Anglican Christian] Chapel.

I am reminded of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwpuJoIvMyA

and of course:

http://discworld.wikia.com/wiki/Ankh-Morpork#Anthem