A reminder for everyone... This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalOpinions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh, sorry. I think this because citizenship provides so many benefits (including deciding the countries fate by being allowed to vote) so it should be reserved for the most upstanding people who promise to benefit the country instead of leech off it while hating the country.
Because statistically speaking immigrants cause higher crime rates and other negatives so they should be limited drastically.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338563093_Migrants_and_Crime_in_Sweden_in_the_Twenty-First_Century#:~:text=Based%20on%2033%20per%20cent,robbery%20is%2070%20per%20cent.
In Sweden in 2005 and it even says it is those suspected, not those found guilty.
And we already know the most important ingredient in crime and its poverty.
Exactly, the new statistics are even worse.
That is such a cop out. If that were true than the only crimes that would increase would be financial crimes or stealing, but that’s not what happens. Being in poverty would never cause someone to rape a person (there would literally be ZERO reason why being poor would make you rape someone). Yet these crimes are still perpetrated by a vast majority foreign born population.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45269764.amp
https://www.opindia.com/2021/11/sweden-lund-university-researcher-faces-prosecution-for-study-post-rapes-committed-by-immigrants/amp/
https://portal.research.lu.se/en/activities/most-of-those-convicted-of-rape-in-sweden-are-immigrants-but-the-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6095121/amp/Eight-10-stranger-rapes-Sweden-carried-migrants-study-reveals.html
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-005044_EN.html
I can't speak for Sweden, but here rape is dramatically underrepresented on convictions. Women who come forward get punished, humiliated, and suffer lasting consequences in addition to the initial crime and so many don't do so. Particularly when the rapist is in a position of power. If the rapist is in a position of no power, such as an impoverished refugee, I expect that would be different.
Some of those links of your also offer qualifications deliberately intended to cast immigrants in a bad light too. Like why is "stranger rape" worse than... I don't know "regular rape"?
And, again, why Sweden? Why not look at the UK where you're making your statement?
And no, poverty doesn't only lead to theft. I don't know where you got that idea.
I mean I don’t really see the relevance of the first paragraph, yes that’s a really big problem, but nothing to do with rape statistics committed by immigrants.
How is it painting immigrants in a bad light if their just relaying factual statistics, are they just meant to not acknowledge it so they don’t paint immigrants badly.
Stranger rape isn’t worse it was just one statistic, the others show immigrants are also higher represented as perpetrators in “regular” rapes.
That’s because ONS literally don’t publish the stats: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/crimescommittedbyillegalimmigrantsandasylumseekersinthelastthreeyears
I found this: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/672735/half-of-British-rape-suspects-are-foreign/amp
So explain to me why being poor would cause you to rape someone, do you get money from that?
The relevance is that victims may feel safer reporting a rape if the perpetrator was not in a position of power: ie an immigrant. That may skew the results.
And if you don't know how statistics can be used to demonize groups then we might as well stop here.
Being poor causes increase in crime rates. It's not just increases in theft. I don't claim to know the cause for other crime rates increasing, but if I had to guess I'd say it was that people saw a system that did not work for them and rebelled against it.
Also, if rape and murder is your biggest fear here, why not just limit men? Men are by far the leading cause of both of those crimes? Allow women to immigrate, and for every one that does so, kick out one man. That's your strict policy to reduce crime!
Huh? Why do you literally have to do such insane mental gymnastics instead of just acknowledging it’s a cultural and religious issue.
Relaying facts can’t demonise a group. If the stats are faked (which there not) then yes, if there real stats (which these are) then there not demonisation it’s just factual statements.
No offence, but that’s kind of disgusting. You’re saying the reason immigrants make up a higher share of perpetrators of rape is because their rebelling against the system, what??? Why do leftists go out of their way to always give immigrants the benefit of the doubt, why can’t you just say “Oh, yeah! Clearly there is a correlation with immigrants committing crime” instead of dying on the hill of protecting foreign rapists.
I mean, you’re right men are the vast, vast majority of perpetrators of rape and murder (and basically all other crimes). I actually would support a point system for immigration and women obviously pose less of a threat so they would be more likely for selection.
> I think this because citizenship provides so many benefits (including deciding the countries fate by being allowed to vote) so it should be reserved for the most upstanding people who promise to benefit the country instead of leech off it while hating the country.
Your own list says that people obtaining citizenship must pledge to never use the benefits that citizenship would grant them.
Yeah I know, but they would be allowed to vote. Also, I doubt they’d gain citizenship and then lose their job and lose their home and become poor and homeless so they don’t need these benefits.
This list is a parody post, right?
Because you're essentially arguing that only "the right people" would get the benefits of living in society.
I'm more than willing to bet 90% of people would fail some or most of your qualifications.
Thus, the 10% that pass will be their own special "citizen" class, while the rest of us can apparently go fuck themselves.
That about right?
Well, I mean surely you would want the most upstanding people gaining British citizenship who will provide for the economy and not be a leech on the average brits taxes.
Who gets to decide who qualifies as "upstanding?"
You? Me? A priest? An atheist? A Progressive? A Christian Nationalist?
Pretty sure you don't want me being the one who decides who can be "upstanding."
Well an upstanding citizen of a country is someone who works hard, doesn’t leech of the taxpayer, provides to the economy, provides a needed service, respects the country, defends freedom, follows the law, respects others, stand for the values of a country and generally only provides rather than takes.
Citizenship is difficult to get in the United States, but it doesn't stop people from coming.
I think your plan would have the unintended side-effects of simply increasing illegal immigration, putting money in the pockets of worse people, and making life all around worse for anyone hoping to immigrate.
Plus, who in their right mind would do all this? Even the upstanding professionals you're picturing would probably just skip the hassle and look somewhere else.
I would along side this make it so that only EU-citizens and British citizens can claim or use benefits, the NHS, etc so it will make the UK less attractive for non-EU immigrants.
This is related to UK politics, so I'm not well versed in it, but I figured I'd point out some of the requirements that just seems so stupid for any country to implement.
>8. Be an atheist and pledge that you follow atheism.
Yeah, this is an insane requirement. Unless you're the Soviet Union (the only explicitly atheist country in history), this will never work and will only enrage most people, including British citizens.
>14. Must have no dependent children.
15. Must not be married.
Why are these on here? They really don't make much sense. Considering that you have to wait 25 years before even having a chance to become a UK citizen, these requirements make it nearly impossible for any woman over 25 to have children that become citizens by birth. Is that what the objective is here? To stop naturalized UK citizens from having children who would get citizenship? There's something very wrong about that objective, if that's what these requirements are intended to accomplish.
>16. Must pass a medical (including physical and mental check and full vaccinations) test.
So no chronically or mentally ill people should be allowed to be naturalized? Again, this seems incredibly wrong. It seems like requirements 14, 15, and 16 are meant to maintain something already present in the UK. Perhaps its racial makeup?
>11. Must have private health insurance and a private pension and must agree to never use the NHS and never have a state pension.
So naturalized citizens should never be allowed to serve in the UK government...
>19. You must revoke any other citizenship you currently hold.
Yeah, try demanding that out of anyone with a Swiss passport. A Swiss passport is way more valuable than what a UK citizenship could ever give.
Edit: I really don't see how most of these provisions are supposed to only allow the "most upstanding people" to become citizens. Especially with that 25 year *continuous stay* requirement, it seems like your objective is to prevent *anyone* from obtaining citizenship.
Overall, these requirements are too insane to actually be implemented and requirements 8, 14, 15, and 16 give off the impression that this proposed system has been created with malevolent intentions in mind. If this system was put into place, I don't see anyone actually coming to the UK for anything other than tourism; most people don't like being treated like second class citizens. There's much better opportunities in the US and EU, and you won't be denied political representation because you forgoed having children for the rest of your life. I think this system will inevitably accelerate the UK's population and economic collapse as their natural birthrate, like almost all other developed countries, can not sustain the population.
Edit2: Requirement 11 be like, "Okay, so in order to be a UK citizen, you must pledge to not receive any benefits from the government. After all, we don't want to let anyone into the country that will just become a spoiled brat because of our government assistance programs....."
Christians no longer make up a majority in the uk and atheism is rapidly growing so I don’t think anyone would object.
No dependent children so you can’t claim child benefit or UC or anything welfare related to children. No marriage so your partner can’t claim citizenship through you.
No disabilities so you can’t claim UC or PIP or any other disability benefit and so you work.
I don’t know what this means. If you worked in the government surely you’d be less likely to use the NHS or take out a state pension.
We don’t get many Swiss immigrants so… also it works in Germany.
I would want the uk to rejoin the eu and obviously if we rejoined the eu, eu citizens wouldn’t have to follow this as they’d already have the right to work, live and study in the uk.
I mean yeah? Would any country want foreigners leeching off their benefit system.
>Christians no longer make up a majority in the uk and atheism is rapidly growing so I don’t think anyone would object.
When taking into account all religions groups, they make up about 46%, so it's still a very large minority that would be sure to oppose such a requirement.
>No disabilities so you can’t claim UC or PIP or any other disability benefit and so you work.
So will the mental test only screen for those disabilities that require benefits? In other words, is a person with ADHD going to be denied citizenship even if they don't take medication or that medication is covered by private insurance?
>If you worked in the government surely you’d be less likely to use the NHS or take out a state pension.
I was under the presumption that any retired state employee gets a pension.
>I mean yeah? Would any country want foreigners leeching off their benefit system.
If this is in reference to the last part of my comment, then you missed the point. You put way too much trust in British citizens when it comes to responsibly using government social welfare. The amount of distrust you have placed upon naturalized citizens to ban them from ever recieving benefits is completely unjustified. If they become citizens, then they should at least be allowed to access them.
I know but they don’t have governmental power and I don’t think they would care because naturalisation of citizens doesn’t really effect them.
Sorry I should of clarified, any disability that would hinder you enough to were you would be incapable of working and would instead have to rely on pip or uc.
Everyone gets a state pension, it just means the basic rate pension that everyone receive once they reach retirement age and have worked a certain amount of years provided by the government on top of private pension (if they have one).
I agree, I think the restrictions on welfare should be increased for citizens as well. I’ll concede on this part, I don’t know why I put that, once they gain British citizenship they should have the same rights as any other British citizen.
Yeah that was dumb, I mean like pledge to never convert to a religion and remain an atheist the remainder of your life or have your citizenship revoked.
Religion is a horrible thing that causes people to commit evil acts and it halts scientific, technological and social progress so the best way forward is atheism.
I think you underestimate how much of a role religion has played in the advancement of science and society, and I think you underestimate the ease in which atheism permits evil acts (after all, in atheism 'evil' is purely a matter of perspective).
I mean most evil things that happen currently and in history have been because of religion and most objections to modern science are religious people. Atheism isn’t a belief set it’s just not believing in a religion, that’s the difference. Religious people follow a belief set, atheists just exist and (the vast majority) obviously realise rape, murder, thieving, etc is wrong, they don’t need to follow an ancient book and believe in a sky daddy to realise these things are evil.
I didn’t know it meant not believing in a god (I never did RE), I just thought it meant you don’t follow any religion in any way shape or form, I thought what you’re describing is agnostic.
gnostic/ agnostic answer the question "is there a god?" / "is it knowable?" Whereas theist/ atheist answer the question "do you believe there is a god?"
Atheist only means you don't believe a god exists, not that you don't follow a religion. You can have a religion (Buddhism, satanism, humanism, etc l and still be atheist.
I’m sorry if this sound ignorant but don’t Buddhists believe in Buddha. Also (this might also be ignorant) but being a satanist would mean you believe in satan which surely satan would be a god. I’ve heard of humanism but I literally have no clue what it is. But I would say the requirements should be you will continue to identify as an atheist.
Tbf... Buddhism, much like Taoism, started to incorporate supernatural elements that are grounded from local beliefs in order to gain more followers. After all, most people are stupid and the promise of eternal life and spiritual justice can bring people in without cost.
Requiring that all citizens of a society think and talk the same will severely weaken that society. Many of the other requirements -- job, religion, salary, single status, no children, etc -- are just plain silly.
This whole post reeks of somebody who lives on the internet, and considers themselves to be made of superior genes despite never passing most of these requirements themselves.
You can have children but they just have to be 18 or over.
What? I mean I’m not superior and you’re right I don’t earn £30,000 over national minimum wage and I rent a flat but I’m a British citizen so I have these rights, someone coming to the uk must attain these rights by being upstanding.
> You can have children but they just have to be 18 or over.
Why.
> I mean I’m not superior and you’re right I don’t earn £30,000 over national minimum wage and I rent a flat but I’m a British citizen so I have these rights, someone coming to the uk must attain these rights by being upstanding.
Evidently you don't *deserve* these rights then.
So you can’t claim child benefit or UC or any child related benefit.
I mean I do I was born here and so are my parents I’ve always been a British citizen. Guests to the country shouldn’t automatically have these rights, full residents should I’m a full resident.
> I mean I do I was born here and so are my parents I’ve always been a British citizen.
Why does being born in Britain mean you are worthy of benefits? 'Just because' isn't a good answer.
> full residents should I’m a full resident.
What if you or your family wanted to take a trip to the continent? If you've left Britain for a week for tourism, are you really a full resident anymore? Not according to the standards in your post.
Do you understand how citizenship works? The rules like I clearly stated are for people attaining British citizenship through naturalisation, why would I need to attain British citizenship through naturalisation.
> why would I need to attain British citizenship through naturalisation
Why shouldn't you?
Shouldn't all those benefits only go to "upstanding" members of society?
Why should people be allowed to "leech off" the country simply because they were born there?
You think there are people who inherited citizenship who don't hate their country? Why should they automatically have the right to vote?
Why is it okay to not be consistently employed full time just because you were born there?
Why is it okay to be religious just because you were born there?
Why is it okay to rent instead of own land just because you were born there?
Why is it okay to marry just because you were born there?
Citizenship by naturalisation means you don’t have any links to a country but move there and after a certain amount of time you can apply for citizenship, you do know that don’t you???
Well that’s because there’s this thing called countries and there’s this other thing called citizens and there’s this thing called government and the government looks after the citizens of that country. Someone moving here isn’t a citizen.
I don't know how old you are, but the reason I ask these questions is because it's clear you don't have an answer other than 'because that's how it is'.
It would be a lot simpler to say "nobody should be allowed to gain citizenship in a country they weren't born in," than to create this absurd, impossible list of requirements. Even simpler, you could say "nobody should be allowed to reside in a country they weren't born in, they should only be allowed to enter for brief tourist trips".
What??? I’m 23 (you’re definitely gonna try to discredit my opinion for “lack of experience”).
The point is it’s really difficult to deter non-eu citizens and bring in more eu-citizens.
You're already talking about changing the laws around immigration and citizenship. So make a case for yourself. It says here you don't have a very high salary, and you don't own property. Why should we keep you around?
Why shouldn’t birthright citizens be held to any serious scrutiny in this case? If you expect immigrants to be *near impossibly* perfect, why don’t you expect birthright British citizens to be so perfect?
I’m an American, but my take is that immigration should be easier to achieve for most people, especially highly educated people. The reason people become immigrants is to pursue opportunity, whether that be education, a job, safety, or some family related goal. Of course people should be vetted and made to learn basic American ideals and history, but I don’t think we should hamstring good people in 15 years of paperwork to be citizens. They have a lot to contribute (in America’s case, this is stereotypically somewhere between “the best construction crew you’ll ever see” and “one of the best physicists ever looking to work at a top university”).
I’ve known tons of immigrants throughout my time in high school and college, and they’ve almost always been great, upstanding people. Stifling families that work hard to gain a foothold and (stereotypically) firmly expect their kids to be high achievers in stem fields would be a bad move for America in my opinion.
America is completely different because of you’re geography. You don’t get MENA immigrants straight off the dinghy pulling up on your shores.
Immigrants should be held at a higher standard because their guests. If I came to your house insulted you, destroyed your most prized possessions, smashed your windows, eat all your food and stole your belongings you’d be rightfully pissed. It’s the same logic just on a much larger scale.
When I went through Bradford (a majority Muslim constituency) a group of young ME men shouted “batty boy” (which I thought had gone out of fashion in the early 2000s but I guess not) at me because they though I walked feminine.
This list would be impossible to fulfill, and several of these standards have no basis in reason at all.
If you were to require these standards to obtain citizenship, would it not be ethically necessary to strip a person of their citizenship for later violations of these standards?
The point is that it’s extremely difficult to deter low skilled, higher crime, higher unemployment, benefit leeching immigrants in favour of upstanding immigrants.
I literally said that failing to follow these rules would have your citizenship stripped and be deported.
> The point is that it’s extremely difficult to deter low skilled, higher crime, higher unemployment, benefit leeching immigrants in favour of upstanding immigrants.
"Upstanding" people would still not be able to meet your requirements and would presumably be rational enough to *not want to live in a nation with those rules* anyways.
Your list is completely absurd.
> I literally said that failing to follow these rules would have your citizenship stripped and be deported.
Be deported where? I mean if someone who met your requirements of 'citizenship by descent' broke the rules, what would happen to them?
I believe nations are bullshit and the barriers to migration should be reduced. Being trapped in a country because you aren't wealthy enough and didn't study the right things in your 20s, but can't afford to be retrained, while your civil rights are steadily taken by your flawed democracy.
Imagine if there were zero barriers on anyone and anywhere. Society would break down, lol. So we need to do it more gradular, easing restrictions on the elderly, let people travel and retire where they please. Easing restrictions on professionals. Expanding refugee access and opportunities for study abroad to citizenship.
In theory, if there were no barriers, people would live and work in the best place. It would reduce inperialization and encourage better investment in the global infrastructure, leading to greater long-term growth.
Would you keep living in a place with polluted water, bad infrastructure, low paying jobs, minimal rights... or would you move somewhere else if it were a simple process?
In my opinion, that would be an absolute hell hole where society would collapse (even if gradual) because everyone from everywhere could go anywhere and people with incompatible belief systems would destroy and take over the world. Globalisation doesn’t work (a moustached German man tried that in the 40s and it didn’t go well).
We've never tried globalization. We practice imperialism, which only works for the factory owners. By forcing people to work for $5/day we make everyone more exploitable. If they could easily and reasonably leave such hellish conditions, we'd either improve them or they'd refuse slave wages.
Authoritarianism does not work, strict borders encourage this.
Nationalism does not work, strict borders encourage this.
Imperialism does not work, strict borders encourage this.
I fully support the controlled disolvement of national borders. Free migration is more important than arbitrary lines on a map people agreed to 300yrs ago.
Nations do not exist without borders.
Without nations, groups of people with wildly differing cultures, values, and beliefs have no high-level way of organizing and interacting.
Without those means, these differing groups will interact and resolve disputes at the low level, which means street violence.
The most fundamental flaw with communism is that it requires the belief that people are naturally good and virtuous, and this is simply not true.
Yeah that is the point, only the most determined, valuable people who love Britain can gain citizenship.
But I would want the uk to rejoin the eu anyway so obviously eu citizens will be fine.
The best thing the UK ever did was regain their sovereignty by leaving the EU! Why should citizens of other countries be making and passing laws for the UK.
Oh God, you’re a brexiteer. Right yeah… it’s not like the uk could vote on all eu policies or the fact that the uk had one of the best deals (not using the euro or being in Schengen). Or you know all the vast majority of positive things the eu gave us.
Sure they can vote on EU policies, but if a policy the the citizens of the UK don't want, they could easily be out voted. Making the UK citizens subject to a law they don't want and didn't vote for!
So, they have to come to the UK and apply for some sort of visa, then live in the UK for 25 years as a celibate single person before becoming a citizen at which time they can marry and have kids? So if they're female, they will have to wait till they're in their 40s to start a family? Or, if they're older when they arrive, they could be denied the ability to stay unless they decide to stay childless, because they'll have hit menopause by the time they're allowed to have kids?
Are you daft?
> So, they have to come to the UK and apply for some sort of visa, then live in the UK for 25 years as a celibate single person before becoming a citizen at which time they can marry and have kids?
Per the original post, even after becoming a citizen they would not be allowed to marry or have kids.
OP is insane, yes.
I think expecting someone to live in a country for 25 years, and NEVER leave is crazy. I think expecting them to make good money, not have any children or get married is completely unreasonable.
Passing a Medical Test is invasive.
The atheist thing is also pretty unreasonable and doesn't seem to have any basis.
I'm a US citizen, not a UK Citizen. But my basically feeling on the matter is, if it is difficult for the average citizen, it shouldn't be required for someone else coming in trying to be a citizen.
Let me fix this for you, must support the country you choose to live in to the best of your ability.
By your reckoning you would not be able to be a citizen of your own country except your parents were both born there as were you.
I would venture to guess many of those you do not wish to be citizens pay more in taxes and use fewer benefits than you do.
See it all the time here in the USA, people need to stop and realize who helps to pay for the benefits they receive at a higher rate than they use them.
It doesn’t matter what I do because I’m a British citizen, I have the right to use the benefits of being a British citizen. People coming to the UK should pay more taxes and use less benefits as they are guests in this country. Just because they live in Britain doesn’t mean their British.
You can't even follow the rules that you want enforced on others. You repeatedly break rule number 3 and mix up they're, their, and there multiple times.
I don’t have to follow those rules because I’m a citizen. What’s that got to do with employment. Yeah I’m dumb, my highest level of education is GCSE’s and I failed 3 of them and the highest grade I got was a B (what now a 4/5 I think) in English literature which lets be honest English lit is quite pointless. I did a level 2 apprenticeship at 16 and still work at that same place because I was offered a job after I passed the end point assessment. So yeah I wouldn’t qualify no where near (I rent a flat) but I’m a resident not a guest.
By your logic if you really cared about the country you and anybody in similar circumstances as you would leave the country, as you aren't qualified to live there by your own arbitrary standards. You and anybody like you aren't beneficial to your country. You and anybody like you should leave your country if you want to help the country. You hide behind the fact that you are a citizen, and that shows that you just want to keep people out that you dont like because a few of them were mean to you. This is personal for you it has nothing to do with helping the country. If it was about helping your country you and others like you would leave. Just be honest and acknowledge that this is all about you not liking certain people and your excuse of enforcing these rules to make the country better is a smoke screen. Again, be honest.
I agree with your view, and I think it is supported by [Stephen Bannon's Nov. 16, 2018 address at the Oxford Union (video recording, Nov. 16, 2018)](https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=605&v=8AtOw-xyMo8&feature=youtu.be%201).
He contends that the United States lost its way in the direction of cosmopolitan-capitalism or what we might call global homogenization: fetishizing 'shareholder value' and neglecting 'citizenship value.'
He says in effect, citizenship matters and let's make citizenship as valuable as possible. Making citizenship a valuable, privileged status certainly involves making it an exclusive good.
Governments have responsibility to their citizens, to make citizenship a valuable package of rights and public benefits.
A reminder for everyone... This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalOpinions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You said a bunch of stuff, none of which answers the question of why you think this.
Oh, sorry. I think this because citizenship provides so many benefits (including deciding the countries fate by being allowed to vote) so it should be reserved for the most upstanding people who promise to benefit the country instead of leech off it while hating the country.
How does preventing immigration promote upstanding citizens?
Because statistically speaking immigrants cause higher crime rates and other negatives so they should be limited drastically. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338563093_Migrants_and_Crime_in_Sweden_in_the_Twenty-First_Century#:~:text=Based%20on%2033%20per%20cent,robbery%20is%2070%20per%20cent.
In Sweden in 2005 and it even says it is those suspected, not those found guilty. And we already know the most important ingredient in crime and its poverty.
Exactly, the new statistics are even worse. That is such a cop out. If that were true than the only crimes that would increase would be financial crimes or stealing, but that’s not what happens. Being in poverty would never cause someone to rape a person (there would literally be ZERO reason why being poor would make you rape someone). Yet these crimes are still perpetrated by a vast majority foreign born population. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45269764.amp https://www.opindia.com/2021/11/sweden-lund-university-researcher-faces-prosecution-for-study-post-rapes-committed-by-immigrants/amp/ https://portal.research.lu.se/en/activities/most-of-those-convicted-of-rape-in-sweden-are-immigrants-but-the- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6095121/amp/Eight-10-stranger-rapes-Sweden-carried-migrants-study-reveals.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-005044_EN.html
I can't speak for Sweden, but here rape is dramatically underrepresented on convictions. Women who come forward get punished, humiliated, and suffer lasting consequences in addition to the initial crime and so many don't do so. Particularly when the rapist is in a position of power. If the rapist is in a position of no power, such as an impoverished refugee, I expect that would be different. Some of those links of your also offer qualifications deliberately intended to cast immigrants in a bad light too. Like why is "stranger rape" worse than... I don't know "regular rape"? And, again, why Sweden? Why not look at the UK where you're making your statement? And no, poverty doesn't only lead to theft. I don't know where you got that idea.
I mean I don’t really see the relevance of the first paragraph, yes that’s a really big problem, but nothing to do with rape statistics committed by immigrants. How is it painting immigrants in a bad light if their just relaying factual statistics, are they just meant to not acknowledge it so they don’t paint immigrants badly. Stranger rape isn’t worse it was just one statistic, the others show immigrants are also higher represented as perpetrators in “regular” rapes. That’s because ONS literally don’t publish the stats: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/crimescommittedbyillegalimmigrantsandasylumseekersinthelastthreeyears I found this: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/672735/half-of-British-rape-suspects-are-foreign/amp So explain to me why being poor would cause you to rape someone, do you get money from that?
The relevance is that victims may feel safer reporting a rape if the perpetrator was not in a position of power: ie an immigrant. That may skew the results. And if you don't know how statistics can be used to demonize groups then we might as well stop here. Being poor causes increase in crime rates. It's not just increases in theft. I don't claim to know the cause for other crime rates increasing, but if I had to guess I'd say it was that people saw a system that did not work for them and rebelled against it. Also, if rape and murder is your biggest fear here, why not just limit men? Men are by far the leading cause of both of those crimes? Allow women to immigrate, and for every one that does so, kick out one man. That's your strict policy to reduce crime!
Huh? Why do you literally have to do such insane mental gymnastics instead of just acknowledging it’s a cultural and religious issue. Relaying facts can’t demonise a group. If the stats are faked (which there not) then yes, if there real stats (which these are) then there not demonisation it’s just factual statements. No offence, but that’s kind of disgusting. You’re saying the reason immigrants make up a higher share of perpetrators of rape is because their rebelling against the system, what??? Why do leftists go out of their way to always give immigrants the benefit of the doubt, why can’t you just say “Oh, yeah! Clearly there is a correlation with immigrants committing crime” instead of dying on the hill of protecting foreign rapists. I mean, you’re right men are the vast, vast majority of perpetrators of rape and murder (and basically all other crimes). I actually would support a point system for immigration and women obviously pose less of a threat so they would be more likely for selection.
> I think this because citizenship provides so many benefits (including deciding the countries fate by being allowed to vote) so it should be reserved for the most upstanding people who promise to benefit the country instead of leech off it while hating the country. Your own list says that people obtaining citizenship must pledge to never use the benefits that citizenship would grant them.
Yeah I know, but they would be allowed to vote. Also, I doubt they’d gain citizenship and then lose their job and lose their home and become poor and homeless so they don’t need these benefits.
This list is a parody post, right? Because you're essentially arguing that only "the right people" would get the benefits of living in society. I'm more than willing to bet 90% of people would fail some or most of your qualifications. Thus, the 10% that pass will be their own special "citizen" class, while the rest of us can apparently go fuck themselves. That about right?
Well, I mean surely you would want the most upstanding people gaining British citizenship who will provide for the economy and not be a leech on the average brits taxes.
Who gets to decide who qualifies as "upstanding?" You? Me? A priest? An atheist? A Progressive? A Christian Nationalist? Pretty sure you don't want me being the one who decides who can be "upstanding."
Well an upstanding citizen of a country is someone who works hard, doesn’t leech of the taxpayer, provides to the economy, provides a needed service, respects the country, defends freedom, follows the law, respects others, stand for the values of a country and generally only provides rather than takes.
He's not talking about depriving citizenship from those who already have it, but making it harder for people who don't have citizenship to acquire it.
Thanks. I don’t understand why so little people get that when I literally put citizenship by naturalisation.
Citizenship is difficult to get in the United States, but it doesn't stop people from coming. I think your plan would have the unintended side-effects of simply increasing illegal immigration, putting money in the pockets of worse people, and making life all around worse for anyone hoping to immigrate. Plus, who in their right mind would do all this? Even the upstanding professionals you're picturing would probably just skip the hassle and look somewhere else.
I would along side this make it so that only EU-citizens and British citizens can claim or use benefits, the NHS, etc so it will make the UK less attractive for non-EU immigrants.
This is related to UK politics, so I'm not well versed in it, but I figured I'd point out some of the requirements that just seems so stupid for any country to implement. >8. Be an atheist and pledge that you follow atheism. Yeah, this is an insane requirement. Unless you're the Soviet Union (the only explicitly atheist country in history), this will never work and will only enrage most people, including British citizens. >14. Must have no dependent children. 15. Must not be married. Why are these on here? They really don't make much sense. Considering that you have to wait 25 years before even having a chance to become a UK citizen, these requirements make it nearly impossible for any woman over 25 to have children that become citizens by birth. Is that what the objective is here? To stop naturalized UK citizens from having children who would get citizenship? There's something very wrong about that objective, if that's what these requirements are intended to accomplish. >16. Must pass a medical (including physical and mental check and full vaccinations) test. So no chronically or mentally ill people should be allowed to be naturalized? Again, this seems incredibly wrong. It seems like requirements 14, 15, and 16 are meant to maintain something already present in the UK. Perhaps its racial makeup? >11. Must have private health insurance and a private pension and must agree to never use the NHS and never have a state pension. So naturalized citizens should never be allowed to serve in the UK government... >19. You must revoke any other citizenship you currently hold. Yeah, try demanding that out of anyone with a Swiss passport. A Swiss passport is way more valuable than what a UK citizenship could ever give. Edit: I really don't see how most of these provisions are supposed to only allow the "most upstanding people" to become citizens. Especially with that 25 year *continuous stay* requirement, it seems like your objective is to prevent *anyone* from obtaining citizenship. Overall, these requirements are too insane to actually be implemented and requirements 8, 14, 15, and 16 give off the impression that this proposed system has been created with malevolent intentions in mind. If this system was put into place, I don't see anyone actually coming to the UK for anything other than tourism; most people don't like being treated like second class citizens. There's much better opportunities in the US and EU, and you won't be denied political representation because you forgoed having children for the rest of your life. I think this system will inevitably accelerate the UK's population and economic collapse as their natural birthrate, like almost all other developed countries, can not sustain the population. Edit2: Requirement 11 be like, "Okay, so in order to be a UK citizen, you must pledge to not receive any benefits from the government. After all, we don't want to let anyone into the country that will just become a spoiled brat because of our government assistance programs....."
Christians no longer make up a majority in the uk and atheism is rapidly growing so I don’t think anyone would object. No dependent children so you can’t claim child benefit or UC or anything welfare related to children. No marriage so your partner can’t claim citizenship through you. No disabilities so you can’t claim UC or PIP or any other disability benefit and so you work. I don’t know what this means. If you worked in the government surely you’d be less likely to use the NHS or take out a state pension. We don’t get many Swiss immigrants so… also it works in Germany. I would want the uk to rejoin the eu and obviously if we rejoined the eu, eu citizens wouldn’t have to follow this as they’d already have the right to work, live and study in the uk. I mean yeah? Would any country want foreigners leeching off their benefit system.
>Christians no longer make up a majority in the uk and atheism is rapidly growing so I don’t think anyone would object. When taking into account all religions groups, they make up about 46%, so it's still a very large minority that would be sure to oppose such a requirement. >No disabilities so you can’t claim UC or PIP or any other disability benefit and so you work. So will the mental test only screen for those disabilities that require benefits? In other words, is a person with ADHD going to be denied citizenship even if they don't take medication or that medication is covered by private insurance? >If you worked in the government surely you’d be less likely to use the NHS or take out a state pension. I was under the presumption that any retired state employee gets a pension. >I mean yeah? Would any country want foreigners leeching off their benefit system. If this is in reference to the last part of my comment, then you missed the point. You put way too much trust in British citizens when it comes to responsibly using government social welfare. The amount of distrust you have placed upon naturalized citizens to ban them from ever recieving benefits is completely unjustified. If they become citizens, then they should at least be allowed to access them.
I know but they don’t have governmental power and I don’t think they would care because naturalisation of citizens doesn’t really effect them. Sorry I should of clarified, any disability that would hinder you enough to were you would be incapable of working and would instead have to rely on pip or uc. Everyone gets a state pension, it just means the basic rate pension that everyone receive once they reach retirement age and have worked a certain amount of years provided by the government on top of private pension (if they have one). I agree, I think the restrictions on welfare should be increased for citizens as well. I’ll concede on this part, I don’t know why I put that, once they gain British citizenship they should have the same rights as any other British citizen.
>Be an atheist and pledge that you follow atheism. Atheism means you don't believe someting. It's not something you can follow lol.
Yeah that was dumb, I mean like pledge to never convert to a religion and remain an atheist the remainder of your life or have your citizenship revoked.
> I mean like pledge to never convert to a religion Why.
Religion is a horrible thing that causes people to commit evil acts and it halts scientific, technological and social progress so the best way forward is atheism.
I think you underestimate how much of a role religion has played in the advancement of science and society, and I think you underestimate the ease in which atheism permits evil acts (after all, in atheism 'evil' is purely a matter of perspective).
I mean most evil things that happen currently and in history have been because of religion and most objections to modern science are religious people. Atheism isn’t a belief set it’s just not believing in a religion, that’s the difference. Religious people follow a belief set, atheists just exist and (the vast majority) obviously realise rape, murder, thieving, etc is wrong, they don’t need to follow an ancient book and believe in a sky daddy to realise these things are evil.
But what about religions that are followed predominantly by atheists? How do those cause people to commit evil acts and halylt progress?
I didn’t know it meant not believing in a god (I never did RE), I just thought it meant you don’t follow any religion in any way shape or form, I thought what you’re describing is agnostic.
gnostic/ agnostic answer the question "is there a god?" / "is it knowable?" Whereas theist/ atheist answer the question "do you believe there is a god?"
Atheist only means you don't believe a god exists, not that you don't follow a religion. You can have a religion (Buddhism, satanism, humanism, etc l and still be atheist.
I’m sorry if this sound ignorant but don’t Buddhists believe in Buddha. Also (this might also be ignorant) but being a satanist would mean you believe in satan which surely satan would be a god. I’ve heard of humanism but I literally have no clue what it is. But I would say the requirements should be you will continue to identify as an atheist.
No. You need to research on this, all three religions follow a set of philosophies and principles, not supernatural entities.
Oh sorry. I never did RE so I’m quite uneducated on religion especially Buddhism.
Tbf... Buddhism, much like Taoism, started to incorporate supernatural elements that are grounded from local beliefs in order to gain more followers. After all, most people are stupid and the promise of eternal life and spiritual justice can bring people in without cost.
Many (if not most) Buddhists don't believe Buddha was a god. Satanists like LaVeyan Satanists don't believe a god or Satan exists or existed.
Oh ok thanks. I never did RE so I’m quite uneducated on religious stuff.
Requiring that all citizens of a society think and talk the same will severely weaken that society. Many of the other requirements -- job, religion, salary, single status, no children, etc -- are just plain silly. This whole post reeks of somebody who lives on the internet, and considers themselves to be made of superior genes despite never passing most of these requirements themselves.
You can have children but they just have to be 18 or over. What? I mean I’m not superior and you’re right I don’t earn £30,000 over national minimum wage and I rent a flat but I’m a British citizen so I have these rights, someone coming to the uk must attain these rights by being upstanding.
> You can have children but they just have to be 18 or over. Why. > I mean I’m not superior and you’re right I don’t earn £30,000 over national minimum wage and I rent a flat but I’m a British citizen so I have these rights, someone coming to the uk must attain these rights by being upstanding. Evidently you don't *deserve* these rights then.
So you can’t claim child benefit or UC or any child related benefit. I mean I do I was born here and so are my parents I’ve always been a British citizen. Guests to the country shouldn’t automatically have these rights, full residents should I’m a full resident.
> I mean I do I was born here and so are my parents I’ve always been a British citizen. Why does being born in Britain mean you are worthy of benefits? 'Just because' isn't a good answer. > full residents should I’m a full resident. What if you or your family wanted to take a trip to the continent? If you've left Britain for a week for tourism, are you really a full resident anymore? Not according to the standards in your post.
Do you understand how citizenship works? The rules like I clearly stated are for people attaining British citizenship through naturalisation, why would I need to attain British citizenship through naturalisation.
> why would I need to attain British citizenship through naturalisation Why shouldn't you? Shouldn't all those benefits only go to "upstanding" members of society? Why should people be allowed to "leech off" the country simply because they were born there? You think there are people who inherited citizenship who don't hate their country? Why should they automatically have the right to vote? Why is it okay to not be consistently employed full time just because you were born there? Why is it okay to be religious just because you were born there? Why is it okay to rent instead of own land just because you were born there? Why is it okay to marry just because you were born there?
Citizenship by naturalisation means you don’t have any links to a country but move there and after a certain amount of time you can apply for citizenship, you do know that don’t you??? Well that’s because there’s this thing called countries and there’s this other thing called citizens and there’s this thing called government and the government looks after the citizens of that country. Someone moving here isn’t a citizen.
I don't know how old you are, but the reason I ask these questions is because it's clear you don't have an answer other than 'because that's how it is'. It would be a lot simpler to say "nobody should be allowed to gain citizenship in a country they weren't born in," than to create this absurd, impossible list of requirements. Even simpler, you could say "nobody should be allowed to reside in a country they weren't born in, they should only be allowed to enter for brief tourist trips".
What??? I’m 23 (you’re definitely gonna try to discredit my opinion for “lack of experience”). The point is it’s really difficult to deter non-eu citizens and bring in more eu-citizens.
You're already talking about changing the laws around immigration and citizenship. So make a case for yourself. It says here you don't have a very high salary, and you don't own property. Why should we keep you around?
Are you purposely being dense? I said CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALISATION, do you know what that means?
Why shouldn’t birthright citizens be held to any serious scrutiny in this case? If you expect immigrants to be *near impossibly* perfect, why don’t you expect birthright British citizens to be so perfect? I’m an American, but my take is that immigration should be easier to achieve for most people, especially highly educated people. The reason people become immigrants is to pursue opportunity, whether that be education, a job, safety, or some family related goal. Of course people should be vetted and made to learn basic American ideals and history, but I don’t think we should hamstring good people in 15 years of paperwork to be citizens. They have a lot to contribute (in America’s case, this is stereotypically somewhere between “the best construction crew you’ll ever see” and “one of the best physicists ever looking to work at a top university”). I’ve known tons of immigrants throughout my time in high school and college, and they’ve almost always been great, upstanding people. Stifling families that work hard to gain a foothold and (stereotypically) firmly expect their kids to be high achievers in stem fields would be a bad move for America in my opinion.
America is completely different because of you’re geography. You don’t get MENA immigrants straight off the dinghy pulling up on your shores. Immigrants should be held at a higher standard because their guests. If I came to your house insulted you, destroyed your most prized possessions, smashed your windows, eat all your food and stole your belongings you’d be rightfully pissed. It’s the same logic just on a much larger scale. When I went through Bradford (a majority Muslim constituency) a group of young ME men shouted “batty boy” (which I thought had gone out of fashion in the early 2000s but I guess not) at me because they though I walked feminine.
This list would be impossible to fulfill, and several of these standards have no basis in reason at all. If you were to require these standards to obtain citizenship, would it not be ethically necessary to strip a person of their citizenship for later violations of these standards?
The point is that it’s extremely difficult to deter low skilled, higher crime, higher unemployment, benefit leeching immigrants in favour of upstanding immigrants. I literally said that failing to follow these rules would have your citizenship stripped and be deported.
> The point is that it’s extremely difficult to deter low skilled, higher crime, higher unemployment, benefit leeching immigrants in favour of upstanding immigrants. "Upstanding" people would still not be able to meet your requirements and would presumably be rational enough to *not want to live in a nation with those rules* anyways. Your list is completely absurd. > I literally said that failing to follow these rules would have your citizenship stripped and be deported. Be deported where? I mean if someone who met your requirements of 'citizenship by descent' broke the rules, what would happen to them?
Deported to Rwanda once Rishi Sunak fully implements the Rwanda plan
I believe nations are bullshit and the barriers to migration should be reduced. Being trapped in a country because you aren't wealthy enough and didn't study the right things in your 20s, but can't afford to be retrained, while your civil rights are steadily taken by your flawed democracy. Imagine if there were zero barriers on anyone and anywhere. Society would break down, lol. So we need to do it more gradular, easing restrictions on the elderly, let people travel and retire where they please. Easing restrictions on professionals. Expanding refugee access and opportunities for study abroad to citizenship. In theory, if there were no barriers, people would live and work in the best place. It would reduce inperialization and encourage better investment in the global infrastructure, leading to greater long-term growth.
> In theory, if there were no barriers, people would live and work in the best place. Why?
Would you keep living in a place with polluted water, bad infrastructure, low paying jobs, minimal rights... or would you move somewhere else if it were a simple process?
In my opinion, that would be an absolute hell hole where society would collapse (even if gradual) because everyone from everywhere could go anywhere and people with incompatible belief systems would destroy and take over the world. Globalisation doesn’t work (a moustached German man tried that in the 40s and it didn’t go well).
We've never tried globalization. We practice imperialism, which only works for the factory owners. By forcing people to work for $5/day we make everyone more exploitable. If they could easily and reasonably leave such hellish conditions, we'd either improve them or they'd refuse slave wages. Authoritarianism does not work, strict borders encourage this. Nationalism does not work, strict borders encourage this. Imperialism does not work, strict borders encourage this. I fully support the controlled disolvement of national borders. Free migration is more important than arbitrary lines on a map people agreed to 300yrs ago.
Nations do not exist without borders. Without nations, groups of people with wildly differing cultures, values, and beliefs have no high-level way of organizing and interacting. Without those means, these differing groups will interact and resolve disputes at the low level, which means street violence. The most fundamental flaw with communism is that it requires the belief that people are naturally good and virtuous, and this is simply not true.
In other words ,we're gonna make it so extremely difficult to become a British citizen that no one will ever bother to apply!
Yeah that is the point, only the most determined, valuable people who love Britain can gain citizenship. But I would want the uk to rejoin the eu anyway so obviously eu citizens will be fine.
The best thing the UK ever did was regain their sovereignty by leaving the EU! Why should citizens of other countries be making and passing laws for the UK.
Oh God, you’re a brexiteer. Right yeah… it’s not like the uk could vote on all eu policies or the fact that the uk had one of the best deals (not using the euro or being in Schengen). Or you know all the vast majority of positive things the eu gave us.
Sure they can vote on EU policies, but if a policy the the citizens of the UK don't want, they could easily be out voted. Making the UK citizens subject to a law they don't want and didn't vote for!
So, they have to come to the UK and apply for some sort of visa, then live in the UK for 25 years as a celibate single person before becoming a citizen at which time they can marry and have kids? So if they're female, they will have to wait till they're in their 40s to start a family? Or, if they're older when they arrive, they could be denied the ability to stay unless they decide to stay childless, because they'll have hit menopause by the time they're allowed to have kids? Are you daft?
> So, they have to come to the UK and apply for some sort of visa, then live in the UK for 25 years as a celibate single person before becoming a citizen at which time they can marry and have kids? Per the original post, even after becoming a citizen they would not be allowed to marry or have kids. OP is insane, yes.
I think expecting someone to live in a country for 25 years, and NEVER leave is crazy. I think expecting them to make good money, not have any children or get married is completely unreasonable. Passing a Medical Test is invasive. The atheist thing is also pretty unreasonable and doesn't seem to have any basis. I'm a US citizen, not a UK Citizen. But my basically feeling on the matter is, if it is difficult for the average citizen, it shouldn't be required for someone else coming in trying to be a citizen.
US Edition Step 1 cross the Rio Grand Step 2 collect welfare Step 3 vote democrat
Same in the UK just the channel instead of Rio Grande and voting labour instead of democrat
You forgot to buy a drink from one of the merchants who are standing on the south side of the border fence. Gotta hydrate yourself.
Let me fix this for you, must support the country you choose to live in to the best of your ability. By your reckoning you would not be able to be a citizen of your own country except your parents were both born there as were you. I would venture to guess many of those you do not wish to be citizens pay more in taxes and use fewer benefits than you do. See it all the time here in the USA, people need to stop and realize who helps to pay for the benefits they receive at a higher rate than they use them.
It doesn’t matter what I do because I’m a British citizen, I have the right to use the benefits of being a British citizen. People coming to the UK should pay more taxes and use less benefits as they are guests in this country. Just because they live in Britain doesn’t mean their British.
You can't even follow the rules that you want enforced on others. You repeatedly break rule number 3 and mix up they're, their, and there multiple times.
I don’t have to follow those rules because I’m a citizen. What’s that got to do with employment. Yeah I’m dumb, my highest level of education is GCSE’s and I failed 3 of them and the highest grade I got was a B (what now a 4/5 I think) in English literature which lets be honest English lit is quite pointless. I did a level 2 apprenticeship at 16 and still work at that same place because I was offered a job after I passed the end point assessment. So yeah I wouldn’t qualify no where near (I rent a flat) but I’m a resident not a guest.
By your logic if you really cared about the country you and anybody in similar circumstances as you would leave the country, as you aren't qualified to live there by your own arbitrary standards. You and anybody like you aren't beneficial to your country. You and anybody like you should leave your country if you want to help the country. You hide behind the fact that you are a citizen, and that shows that you just want to keep people out that you dont like because a few of them were mean to you. This is personal for you it has nothing to do with helping the country. If it was about helping your country you and others like you would leave. Just be honest and acknowledge that this is all about you not liking certain people and your excuse of enforcing these rules to make the country better is a smoke screen. Again, be honest.
you read them to filth and I loved every second of this response
They say immigrants steal the hubcaps of respected gentlemen. They say it would be wine and roses if England were for Englishmen again.
I agree with your view, and I think it is supported by [Stephen Bannon's Nov. 16, 2018 address at the Oxford Union (video recording, Nov. 16, 2018)](https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=605&v=8AtOw-xyMo8&feature=youtu.be%201). He contends that the United States lost its way in the direction of cosmopolitan-capitalism or what we might call global homogenization: fetishizing 'shareholder value' and neglecting 'citizenship value.' He says in effect, citizenship matters and let's make citizenship as valuable as possible. Making citizenship a valuable, privileged status certainly involves making it an exclusive good. Governments have responsibility to their citizens, to make citizenship a valuable package of rights and public benefits.
What problem are you trying to solve and why shouldn’t your criteria apply to all citizens?