"Earning" the right to stay?
From the Border Agency's Consultation section on proposed changes to the current immigration rules:
The Government has already made fundamental reforms to the immigration system, to control migration in a way that is firm but fair. We now want to take these reforms a stage further, to build upon and strengthen the principle of earned citizenship.
Here's their blurb on "earned citizenship", in case you're interested (slightly redacted, emphases mine):
"The United Kingdom Government is changing the way that migrants progress to British citizenship, making sure that people who want to build a new life here have earned the right to do so - and the UK Border Agency wants your views on the latest proposals.
Earned citizenship will ensure that the rights and benefits of British citizenship are matched by responsibilities and contributions made to our society. Those who want to settle permanently in the United Kingdom will have to earn the right to stay by learning English, paying taxes and obeying the law.
The Government will support migrants who play by the rules, and will take action to punish those who do not - migrants who demonstrate 'active citizenship' will be able to become British citizens more quickly."
To clarify: the above rules are being applied to people who have entered the UK legally for the purposes of working here. They pay taxes. They actively contribute to the economy. They send their children to school and do their bit to keep the house market alive (they account for a large percentage of first time buyers, naturally). They have not cheated, lied or asked for any special treatment in order to come into this country. There is absolutely no question that their presence here is in any way illicit or onerous on the state.
And yet if they want to participate in the democratic process by being allowed to vote for the government that sets and collects their taxes, or integrate further into British society by becoming eligible to stand for office or represent Britain internationally, they have to earn that right. No similar tests are imposed any UK native before they are allowed to vote or get a passport - this requirement is applied solely on the basis of country of origin.
This is clearly a discriminatory policy, and it is already the law, as are other degrading and discriminatory practices such as the "living in the UK test" and the oath of allegiance that all newly naturalised people must take in order to finalize their citizenship. Not satisfied with those, the government now wants to extend their "firm but fair" approach to migration by setting up a "points" system by which to measure the progress of said migrant applicants towards citizenship.
Do you agree that we should operate a flexible system that allows us to control the number of migrants progressing to probationary citizenship?
No.
It sounds from the text of the white paper that the idea is to apply market forces to the movements of human populations by implementing a sort of supply and demand protectionist policy: when the UK "needs" more unskilled workers, the policy will be relaxed, and when it doesn't the policy will be tightened and more points will be required to qualify for citizenship. There are two problems with this approach: a) I don't think it would stand a challenge in the European court of Human Rights, and b) the reality of its application is almost guaranteed to respond to public pressures and political anxieties and serve as a ground for scoring nationalist points rather than track the actual needs of the economy. It's also entirely unclear why letting fewer unskilled workers and more skilled ones into the country makes economic sense (it obviously makes PR sense, because of deeply ingrained classism in British society): we already have an over educated labour force and a shortage of unskilled and semi skilled labour to do basic industrial and service jobs, or there wouldn't be such a thriving market in importing migrant workers for the agricultural, medical and hospitality sectors in the first place. So this is an inhumane approach that does not address what it sets out to address and has no hope of being applied in the way it was allegedly designed.
Do you agree that a points-based test should be introduced in the application process for permanent settlement?
No.
Current criteria for naturalisation are not so lax that complicating the process is at all necessary. Having satisfied the tests of residency, things like being allowed to participate in the electoral process should be viewed as a right and not a privilege. Especially in the case of economic migrants who by definition come here to contribute to the economy and are liable for all the same tax burdens that British born people are liable to, to then condition their democratic rights to a political voice is, again, not something that can be defended under current human rights legislation (even if it were conscionable to do so, which it isn't).
Should points be deducted or penalties applied for failure to meet requirements for integration into British life?
No.
It is more than a little concerning that these so called requirements for integration will express themselves in practice as markers of acquiescence and complacency with the current government. This will compromise people's freedom of assembly, expression and protest, all universal principles of Liberal Democracy and not just privileges granted to British citizens. If people who, by the very definition of this policy, are in the country legally, and are on track to be legally naturalised, feel that they are under pressure to avoid public disagreement with the state (something which I am at this very moment wary of, as this is the situation I find myself in), then their human rights are being impinged on. That is not a defensible state of affairs, not least because it is a clear case of discrimination on the basis of nationality.
I would encourage all the Brits among you to read this white paper (follow the link in the first quote on this post), not so much because it affects you guys, but simply because it's good for the citizens of a country to be aware of the Orwellian lengths to which their government will go in order to mollify the more xenophobic, right-wing elements of the electorate. The real tragedy here is that if, a now seems likely, the Conservatives get in at the next election, they will have to go one better than this in order to demonstrate their nationalist commitment to their own right-wing base; which means this is definitely the thin end of the wedge and things for foreigners in the UK are about to get much stickier.