|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 10, 2023 8:13:17 GMT
I don't give a feck if they're foreign or not. Elective democracy is the right of the governed to choose those who govern them. The UK is their government, for the blindingly obvious reason that they are governed by it. If you live here, you are part of the governed, irrespective of your passport; you have a stake, you are bound by the laws, you are subject to taxation, you should get a vote. This is absolutely basic liberal democracy. Anything else prizes bit of paper given out by the fucking government over the rights of the people. It's anti-democratic. If you don't want certain people to live here and have a vote, then OK you can vote for laws* to stop them coming here - and there are people I wouldn't let in - or laws requiring them to take steps (e.g. learning the language) - but once you've let them domicile here (and I use the term advisedly) they're either one of us until they leave or they have no place here at all. If you don't live here, you're not and you shouldn't, irrespective of passport. If you have British citizenship it gives you the right to return here and have a vote, but until you do, you shouldn't. But I'm willing to be flexible on that - some people are operating in more the one country or retain their links with the UK. Foreign influence is an entirely different issue, that is about people domiciled abroad, and often acting on behalf of hostile states, interfering in our political process via fraud or control of the news media in our country while having no stake in it, and in some cases deliberately opting out of doing so. * More accurately, you can vote for MPs who you hope will pass those laws. And the weakness of that is another reason why the right of people who live here, contributing, and obeying the laws should trump bits of paper issued by the government every time. No taxation without representation is sound and exceptions should be applied with caution, primarily to people who are paying tax in more than one jurisdiction. Foreigners are here at OUR will and on OUR terms. They have No rights to anything at all. If they don't like our terms they are free to leave. I don't completely disagree. "There's a boat in the morning", as they say in the Isle of Man. But the terms ought to be: participate. And that means they should be able to vote. And I challenge the idea that anyone is here on "our" terms in the sense of "you and me". Government doesn't work like that, probably can't. Citizenship and right of residence in Britain has always been in the gift of government. Huge struggles wrested a degree of control of that government from the Crown but practically speaking on this issue it is decided by bureaucrats with a massive dollop of Crown prerogative. That's true whether you are for or against immigration - as an opponent, you must be fully aware that governments have for decades pursued immigration policies you, and probably a majority of the population, disagree with and there's very little you can do about it. One of the philosophical differences between you and me is that I take a sceptical approach to government control whereas you're an authoritarian. I tend to want the individual, irrespective of their origin, to be able to pursue their lives free of interference so long as they don't interfere with me. I lived for decades in London surrounded by people from outside - which includes loads of you lot from the North of England by the way - and none of them gave me any trouble at all. So I strongly suspect that when politicians are telling me that the really important thing is for them to protect me from foreigners, it's a distraction technique to get the politicians off the hook. (As it clearly is right now - Sunak is going big on boats because on very other measure his government is lousy, while Braverman and Anderson/Chalk squawk while doing bugger all about the state of policing and administration of justice in the UK, which are a shambles.) |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 10, 2023 8:26:23 GMT
Because they work, pay tax, are part of our society? They should surely all be able to vote for the representative of the community in which they live and contribute. If they live here, work, pay tax and are part of our society and commited to it, then they can, and in my view should, seek formal citizenship of it. Then they will get the undisputed right to vote. The problem with this is that frequently it has an impact on the ability to return to their former country, if that country doesn't permit dual citizenship. And people legitimately may want to keep options open (e.g. to be able to visit their parents) or to be able to escape the UK if public opinion turns against their ethnic minority. Ask a German Jew. And why should they seek citizenship? What good does it do? If you want commitment, do you think a foreign-born immigrant who hates the UK will miraculously become loyal because they have gone through an administrative process? We conducted a huge experiment in this after Irish independence, when any Irish person was (and still is) permitted to come and go (and vote) without taking up British citizenship. I've never seen any evidence of any negative impact on the UK whatsoever, despite the fact that for historical reasons many Irish people are hostile to Britain. On the whole, most of the problems involved ethnic Irish people with UK citizenship by birth. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 10, 2023 8:34:50 GMT
Though pretty much financially impossible unless you work in finance making obscene amounts of money. The cost of obtaining citizenship is grossly unfair Are you sure? I can think off-hand of three people I know that have done it. None of them worked in finance, although I admit they all had reasonably (not extravagantly) well-paid jobs. I'd make it available at reasonable cost to anyone that has lived and worked here for, say, ten years and has not had any trouble with the law. You don't need to work in finance. It is however a ridiculously complex process and the fees charged are out of all proportion to the administrative expense of the process. |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,633 
|
Post by ricmk on Aug 10, 2023 9:18:43 GMT
Not often my blood starts boiling reading threads here but this one is getting there - my wife is a „foreigner“ so I’m reading all the comments through that lens. Getting on for 15 years of paying taxes, teaching the next generation and contributing to society through raising her family and supporting me on council work.
Having said that she is now a British citizen, we didn’t trust settled status at all so decided to bite the bullet post Brexit. The expense has already been mentioned but it’s the faff that was the worst thing. Swotting up for that ridiculous ‚Life in the UK‘ test and having to arrange an English test when she has a degree in English. So she fully intends to vote at the next election. But she should be able to either way - she pays enough tax to have a say, certainly locally and probably nationally.
Postscript - in lockdown a few friends ran a monthly quiz night, when it was my turn I did a round of questions from the ‚Life in the UK‘ test. Fair to say most of the quizzers would have been deported…..was a real eye-opener for a few.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 10, 2023 10:39:48 GMT
If they live here, work, pay tax and are part of our society and commited to it, then they can, and in my view should, seek formal citizenship of it. Then they will get the undisputed right to vote. The problem with this is that frequently it has an impact on the ability to return to their former country, if that country doesn't permit dual citizenship. And people legitimately may want to keep options open (e.g. to be able to visit their parents) or to be able to escape the UK if public opinion turns against their ethnic minority. Ask a German Jew. And why should they seek citizenship? What good does it do? If you want commitment, do you think a foreign-born immigrant who hates the UK will miraculously become loyal because they have gone through an administrative process? We conducted a huge experiment in this after Irish independence, when any Irish person was (and still is) permitted to come and go (and vote) without taking up British citizenship. I've never seen any evidence of any negative impact on the UK whatsoever, despite the fact that for historical reasons many Irish people are hostile to Britain. On the whole, most of the problems involved ethnic Irish people with UK citizenship by birth. Well, OK, let me refine my position slightly.
The word 'should' was a bit strong. What I meant is that if someone of foreign origin is now settled here, earning a living and paying tax, not getting in trouble with the law, and having no expectation of relocating elsewhere, then I'd prefer him or her to take up UK citizenship (which I'd like to be, for such people, a straightforward and accessible process with any charges limited to the reasonable costs of administration). The reason I'd like them to do this is that they are then accepting the full responsibilities of citizenship including the franchise, serving on juries, &c.
But I wouldn't compel it. People may have their own reasons for not applying and I respect that, although it may cause me to question how committed they are to the UK. As for a foreign-born immigrant who hates the UK, obviously he or she wouldn't want citizenship, but I liked the Manx maxim quoted on the thread: There's a boat in the morning. (No, I'm not saying that someone should be forcibly expelled for hating the UK. But I seriously query what he or she is doing here.)
The Irish example is not apropos because, as we discussed on another thread, the Irish (NI or the Republic) are not foreigners.
|
|
msc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 910
|
Post by msc on Aug 10, 2023 10:46:03 GMT
Not often my blood starts boiling reading threads here but this one is getting there - my wife is a „foreigner“ so I’m reading all the comments through that lens. Getting on for 15 years of paying taxes, teaching the next generation and contributing to society through raising her family and supporting me on council work. Having said that she is now a British citizen, we didn’t trust settled status at all so decided to bite the bullet post Brexit. The expense has already been mentioned but it’s the faff that was the worst thing. Swotting up for that ridiculous ‚Life in the UK‘ test and having to arrange an English test when she has a degree in English. So she fully intends to vote at the next election. But she should be able to either way - she pays enough tax to have a say, certainly locally and probably nationally. Postscript - in lockdown a few friends ran a monthly quiz night, when it was my turn I did a round of questions from the ‚Life in the UK‘ test. Fair to say most of the quizzers would have been deported…..was a real eye-opener for a few. A friend who passed that test (he was an American economic migrant) once got us to take that very test. I failed it and well remember one of my historical answers (about the date of an election) was marked incorrect because this test had the wrong year in its answers. So it wasn't even a matter of swotting on history, it was swotting on the answers the test wanted you to give. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 10, 2023 10:46:36 GMT
Given the Member of Parliament represents (and takes casework concerning) every person in their constituency regardless of age or nationality, redistribution should be on the basis of usual resident population regardless of age or nationality. I disagree with this because it implies that casework is the most important function of MPs.
Far more important, to my mind, is that they are essential instruments in the fundamental purpose for which we hold national elections, namely to allow us to choose a government. Basing distribution on resident population, rather than registered electors, would mean that certain voters would gain additional weight because they happen to live in areas with a disproportionately large number of under-18s or resident foreigners. I can't see any justification for this.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 10, 2023 10:47:39 GMT
Because they work, pay tax, are part of our society? They should surely all be able to vote for the representative of the community in which they live and contribute. If they live here, work, pay tax and are part of our society and commited to it, then they can, and in my view should, seek formal citizenship of it. Then they will get the undisputed right to vote. Eaxctly. If you want to vote here, become a citizen here, exactly the same as almost the entirety of the rest of the world. If I want to vote in Japan, I have to become a Japanese citizen. If you haven't become a citizen here, then you are *not* committed to being here. And we should ****NEVER**** have a system that bases voting rights on paying tax. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 10, 2023 10:53:16 GMT
If they live here, work, pay tax and are part of our society and commited to it, then they can, and in my view should, seek formal citizenship of it. Then they will get the undisputed right to vote. Though pretty much financially impossible unless you work in finance making obscene amounts of money. The cost of obtaining citizenship is grossly unfair. So what's that stream of cleaners, shop workers, car washers, care workers, I see streaming out of the citizenship ceremonies at the Town Hall every week? My (ex)wife was committed enough to this country to gain citizenship, and she is/was no way making obscene amounts of money. She retired on just over average household income. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 10, 2023 10:59:22 GMT
If they live here, work, pay tax and are part of our society and commited to it, then they can, and in my view should, seek formal citizenship of it. Then they will get the undisputed right to vote. The problem with this is that frequently it has an impact on the ability to return to their former country, if that country doesn't permit dual citizenship. In that case, as I keep saying, they demonstrably *HAVEN'T* committed to this country. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 10, 2023 11:05:50 GMT
Not often my blood starts boiling reading threads here but this one is getting there - my wife is a „foreigner“ so I’m reading all the comments through that lens. Getting on for 15 years of paying taxes, teaching the next generation and contributing to society through raising her family and supporting me on council work. Having said that she is now a British citizen, we didn’t trust settled status at all so decided to bite the bullet post Brexit. The expense has already been mentioned but it’s the faff that was the worst thing. Swotting up for that ridiculous ‚Life in the UK‘ test and having to arrange an English test when she has a degree in English. So she fully intends to vote at the next election. But she should be able to either way - she pays enough tax to have a say, certainly locally and probably nationally. Postscript - in lockdown a few friends ran a monthly quiz night, when it was my turn I did a round of questions from the ‚Life in the UK‘ test. Fair to say most of the quizzers would have been deported…..was a real eye-opener for a few. BEING RICH ENOUGH TO PAY TAX SHOULD NEVER BE A QUALIFICATION FOR VOTING. |
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Aug 10, 2023 11:07:08 GMT
The problem with this is that frequently it has an impact on the ability to return to their former country, if that country doesn't permit dual citizenship. In that case, as I keep saying, they demonstrably *HAVEN'T* committed to this country. Do you believe the UK is wrong to allow dual nationality? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 10, 2023 11:15:37 GMT
In that case, as I keep saying, they demonstrably *HAVEN'T* committed to this country. Do you believe the UK is wrong to allow dual nationality? I don't know, I haven't thought about it enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 10, 2023 11:37:50 GMT
Given the Member of Parliament represents (and takes casework concerning) every person in their constituency regardless of age or nationality, redistribution should be on the basis of usual resident population regardless of age or nationality. I disagree with this because it implies that casework is the most important function of MPs. Far more important, to my mind, is that they are essential instruments in the fundamental purpose for which we hold national elections, namely to allow us to choose a government. Basing distribution on resident population, rather than registered electors, would mean that certain voters would gain additional weight because they happen to live in areas with a disproportionately large number of under-18s or resident foreigners. I can't see any justification for this.
That's a feature not a bug. Members of Parliament do not represent electors, but constituencies: local communities (it's called House of Commons because of the norman French ' communes'). The local community includes all who participate including visitors, social groups, commercial entities, voluntary sector bodies, arts and cultural institutions. The electors within these communities must decide who is the best candidate to represent the whole of the area. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 10, 2023 11:57:04 GMT
If they live here, work, pay tax and are part of our society and commited to it, then they can, and in my view should, seek formal citizenship of it. Then they will get the undisputed right to vote. Though pretty much financially impossible unless you work in finance making obscene amounts of money. The cost of obtaining citizenship is grossly unfair Whereas I think obtaining citizenship is far too easy, too simple, too quick and nothing like expensive enough. It should be a difficult and highly prized priviledge obtained after years of proof of quality and status and value to the host nation and be impossible to the poor, the old and those with deficient or inadequate fluency in English. It should cost at least £10K minimum. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,463
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Aug 10, 2023 12:05:44 GMT
Though pretty much financially impossible unless you work in finance making obscene amounts of money. The cost of obtaining citizenship is grossly unfair Whereas I think obtaining citizenship is far too easy, too simple, too quick and nothing like expensive enough. It should be a difficult and highly prized priviledge obtained after years of proof of quality and status and value to the host nation and be impossible to the poor, the old and those with deficient or inadequate fluency in English. It should cost at least £10K minimum.Would this amount be sufficient do you think to promote the 'maximum outflow' to quote J Enoch Powell?  |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 10, 2023 12:21:18 GMT
Not often my blood starts boiling reading threads here but this one is getting there - my wife is a „foreigner“ so I’m reading all the comments through that lens. Getting on for 15 years of paying taxes, teaching the next generation and contributing to society through raising her family and supporting me on council work. Having said that she is now a British citizen, we didn’t trust settled status at all so decided to bite the bullet post Brexit. The expense has already been mentioned but it’s the faff that was the worst thing. Swotting up for that ridiculous ‚Life in the UK‘ test and having to arrange an English test when she has a degree in English. So she fully intends to vote at the next election. But she should be able to either way - she pays enough tax to have a say, certainly locally and probably nationally. Postscript - in lockdown a few friends ran a monthly quiz night, when it was my turn I did a round of questions from the ‚Life in the UK‘ test. Fair to say most of the quizzers would have been deported…..was a real eye-opener for a few. BEING RICH ENOUGH TO PAY TAX SHOULD NEVER BE A QUALIFICATION FOR VOTING. And on this at least, we totally agree  |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 10, 2023 12:40:28 GMT
In that case, as I keep saying, they demonstrably *HAVEN'T* committed to this country. Do you believe the UK is wrong to allow dual nationality? Yes. One cannot be loyal to two places. It is an absurdity and should be stopped. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 10, 2023 12:54:09 GMT
I disagree with this because it implies that casework is the most important function of MPs. Far more important, to my mind, is that they are essential instruments in the fundamental purpose for which we hold national elections, namely to allow us to choose a government. Basing distribution on resident population, rather than registered electors, would mean that certain voters would gain additional weight because they happen to live in areas with a disproportionately large number of under-18s or resident foreigners. I can't see any justification for this.
That's a feature not a bug. Members of Parliament do not represent electors, but constituencies: local communities (it's called House of Commons because of the norman French ' communes'). The local community includes all who participate including visitors, social groups, commercial entities, voluntary sector bodies, arts and cultural institutions. The electors within these communities must decide who is the best candidate to represent the whole of the area. No. The electors surely must decide what is in the best interest of themselves, their family and their economic objectives and who will contribute to the proper governance of the nation and scrutiny of legislation and conduct of the administration. The representation aspect is a lesser matter and for me is about the electors and the needs of a strong state alone. Non-citizens are virtually off-the-scale of any consideration at all. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 10, 2023 13:11:40 GMT
Whereas I think obtaining citizenship is far too easy, too simple, too quick and nothing like expensive enough. It should be a difficult and highly prized priviledge obtained after years of proof of quality and status and value to the host nation and be impossible to the poor, the old and those with deficient or inadequate fluency in English. It should cost at least £10K minimum.Would this amount be sufficient do you think to promote the 'maximum outflow' to quote J Enoch Powell? I don't know and had quite forgotten that Powell objective. |
|
