930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: thirsty moore on September 03, 2003, 12:36:00 pm
-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=573&u=/nm/20030903/od_nm/immigration_dc&printer=1 (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=573&u=/nm/20030903/od_nm/immigration_dc&printer=1)
Facing a 'Britishness' Test??
LONDON (Reuters) - Immigrants to Britain might have to demonstrate English language skills and their "Britishness" to gain citizenship, the government said Wednesday.
"Life in the United Kingdom," a report which recommends the tests, comes as the government tries to calm fears that the country is becoming swamped with asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.
"The new requirements are to be seen not as a new hurdle but as a much needed entitlement," said the government-commissioned report. "Those who become British citizens should ... have a sense of belonging to a wider community."
The concept of citizenship tests have been a controversial issue in Britain ever since Norman Tebbit, a leading lieutenant of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, notoriously suggested a "cricket test," under which immigrants could only be classified as British if they cheered for the England cricket team
Over 100,000 would take the new tests each year, under the new proposals. Those failing would not be asked to leave, but they would be refused a British passport or the right to vote, said Sir Bernard Crick, who chaired the group behind the report.
"We are trying to ensure people are capable of integrating in society," Home Secretary David Blunkett told BBC radio. "How can you build a cohesive society if people can't communicate?"
The government has pledged to halve the number of asylum claims within the space of a year. It has until October to meet that pledge.
Last year, Britain topped the European league with 103,000 claimants, a 20 percent rise year on year.
The report group rejected suggestions that immigrants be coached in British history, instead opting for British democracy; multiculturalism; legal rights and employment opportunities.
-
YEAH! What a great idea that will never come to be...thanks to the markies of the world.
First rule should be you must be fluent in English and obey all British laws, so get your fucking turbans off or sell your fucking motorbike for starters.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
the markies of the world.
I suppose Mankie is a pure bred Englishman? Diversity is a good thing, else you wouldnt get a curry or a sweet and sour.
-
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
Originally posted by mankie:
the markies of the world.
I suppose Mankie is a pure bred Englishman? Diversity is a good thing, else you wouldnt get a curry or a sweet and sour. [/b]
Oh God, here we go again...I'm all for diversity, but if you move to a foreign country you should respect and obey it's laws and cultures, which you can do without losing your native country's cultures or your personal identity...can I drive on the left side of the road in America.....can I go drink a beer in a bar in Saudi Arabia, could my wife wear clothes that show her ankles in Afghanistan....These are all legal in my native country but not in those places.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Oh God, here we go again...I'm all for diversity, but if you move to a foreign country you should respect and obey it's laws and cultures, which you can do without losing your native country's cultures or your personal identity...
First rule should be you must be fluent in English and obey all British laws, so get your fucking turbans off or sell your fucking motorbike for starters.
So which is it, Mankie. You can obey English laws and still wear a turban, can't you? I'm all for English as a national language, but come on. The rest is culture and is up to you. As long as you don't try to make me wear a turbin too...
-
Originally posted by bags:
You can obey English laws and still wear a turban, can't you?
Dont argue with Mankie about race relations. He just goes all red faced, like he is about to burst.
-
Originally posted by bags:
Originally posted by mankie:
Oh God, here we go again...I'm all for diversity, but if you move to a foreign country you should respect and obey it's laws and cultures, which you can do without losing your native country's cultures or your personal identity...
First rule should be you must be fluent in English and obey all British laws, so get your fucking turbans off or sell your fucking motorbike for starters.
So which is it, Mankie. You can obey English laws and still wear a turban, can't you? I'm all for English as a national language, but come on. The rest is culture and is up to you. As long as you don't try to make me wear a turbin too... [/b]
My turban comment was for markie because he knows what I'm talking about, but let me explain to you bags....In Britain it has been law for years that you must wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle...the turban wearing crowd kicked up a fuss that it was unfair to them that they couldn't ride a motorbike so the spineless bastards in the houses of parliament changed OUR laws to suit them, which I happen to have a problem with. Now, the helmet law in itself is a little controversial, but I agree with it in Britain because if you crush your skull the taxpayer pays to fix you because we have socialized medicine, but in the US it's 'nonya' if I wear a helmet or not because my private healthcare will foot the bill. Having said that I've always been a helmet wearer on my bike, but do understand the argument against it in the US.
-
See Markie, I learned from Mankie! That's fascinating. I totally didn't get that from your post, because I didn't know that whole background. I agree, that's fucked up. And I shouldn't have to wear a seatbelt because I have big boobs! Okay, not exactly the same, but the driver of the car in which I get killed may have an argument when my family sues.
Litigious Americans suck, by the way.
-
Originally posted by bags:
I agree, that's fucked up.
who are you agreeing with?
I think its fine to make some concessions to appease some people of non-christian religous beliefs. Mankie does not.
How many turban wearing motorcyclists have you ever seen, Mankie?
I believe integration is a 2-way street. I believe there has to be a little give and take. Or else, I guess, there is no diversification. Just pockets of other nationalities, not mixing with their neighbours, which in the end leads to resentment and fighting.
-
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
Originally posted by bags:
I agree, that's fucked up.
who are you agreeing with?
I think its fine to make some concessions to appease some people of non-christian religous beliefs. Mankie does not.
How many turban wearing motorcyclists have you ever seen, Mankie?
I believe integration is a 2-way street. I believe there has to be a little give and take. Or else, I guess, there is no diversification. Just pockets of other nationalities, not mixing with their neighbours, which in the end leads to resentment and fighting. [/b]
i saw a guy riding his bike on the w&od trail the other day with a bike helmet ontop of his turban...i thought the helmet was kind of useless since he was wearing it really loose and it was crooked..probably wouldn't have helped him out any if he fell off the bike
-
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
Originally posted by bags:
I agree, that's fucked up.
who are you agreeing with?
I think its fine to make some concessions to appease some people of non-christian religous beliefs. Mankie does not.
How many turban wearing motorcyclists have you ever seen, Mankie?
I believe integration is a 2-way street. I believe there has to be a little give and take. Or else, I guess, there is no diversification. Just pockets of other nationalities, not mixing with their neighbours, which in the end leads to resentment and fighting. [/b]
I saw quite a few turban bikers in Manc...but that's irrelevant, it's the principal that I think is so wrong.
You comment about not mixing with their neigbours reminded me of something I thought of this morning driving by the huge Jewis community center complex in Rockville today....America is all about integration and forcing people to get along, while at the same time every small faction has it's own little community...the JCC, the muslim education center....concerned black men, Catholic schools.etc. etc....I think these places have a place in society without question, but people tend to put too much emphasis on them and therefore segregate each other because of them. They all seem so un-American somehow.
bags...you have big boobs! ;) hewyewdew'n!
-
I agree with Mankie on the helmet law. Sorry, the reason it's a law is public safety. If they don't want to say the pledge allegiance, or sing "God Save the Queen" or whatever, more power to them. They shouldn't have to.
Actually, I recently found out that the "under God" part of the Pledge wasn't instituted until 1953 as a reaction to McCarthyism and Red fear. This is 75 years after the Pledge was written. So you tell me, does it need to be there still? I say no.
So I'm with you as well, Markie.
Yeah, I have big boobs, but the whole package is big so it's not all that amazing. :p
-
I really dont understand why you object so much to the turban/ helmet law. Why is it so bad?
I agree with you on the rest though Mankie. Although I guess that the Jewish race itself can be viewed like an exclusive club. I guess that insular nature is part of their reason for their persecution.
-
what about the turban wearing pigs? all pigs should wear a tit on there head.
-
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
I really dont understand why you object so much to the turban/ helmet law. Why is it so bad?
I agree with you on the rest though Mankie. Although I guess that the Jewish race itself can be viewed like an exclusive club. I guess that insular nature is part of their reason for their persecution.
I'm not picking on them because of their beliefs markie...I just think that if you live in a country then you should live within it's laws and not have them changed to suit you...if it was the yorkshire pudding brigade and their cloth caps I would feel exactly the same about the issue.
I have no feelings either way about the Jewish in-crowd or any other group for that matter, but don't segregate yourselves then bitch about being segregated...like the gay pride movement, why can't you all just be gay and shut the hell up? It's not like we have a "straight pride" march.
-
Originally posted by bungle bud:
what about the turban wearing pigs? all pigs should wear a tit on there head.
See that I have no problem with...it's just a uniform. In fact, I remember in my search and rescue days the RAF dress uniform had light blue turbans for those turban lads, and I have to say it looked a whole lot smarter than the stupid bus conductor hats we all had to wear.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
I have no feelings either way about the Jewish in-crowd or any other group for that matter, but don't segregate yourselves then bitch about being segregated...like the gay pride movement, why can't you all just be gay and shut the hell up? It's not like we have a "straight pride" march.
I know you were just trying to make a point, but I have to point out that historically oppressed groups usually aren't bitching about being segregated. Using your example of the gay movement, they're bitching about being completely disenfranchised as full citizens, which is kind of a different thing.
Groups that have traditionally been branded as "outsiders" in mainstream WASPy america form associations in order to strengthen their community in a place where they're often underrepresented. Of course we don't throw "straight parades" or "white parades" because there's nothing to strengthen there--it's the default, dominant status quo. I don't think you can really compare the two as if there were no historical difference.
-
Originally posted by SueAndNotU:
Originally posted by mankie:
I have no feelings either way about the Jewish in-crowd or any other group for that matter, but don't segregate yourselves then bitch about being segregated...like the gay pride movement, why can't you all just be gay and shut the hell up? It's not like we have a "straight pride" march.
I know you were just trying to make a point, but I have to point out that historically oppressed groups usually aren't bitching about being segregated. Using your example of the gay movement, they're bitching about being completely disenfranchised as full citizens, which is kind of a different thing.
Groups that have traditionally been branded as "outsiders" in mainstream WASPy america form associations in order to strengthen their community in a place where they're often underrepresented. Of course we don't throw "straight parades" or "white parades" because there's nothing to strengthen there--it's the default, dominant status quo. I don't think you can really compare the two as if there were no historical difference. [/b]
Point take...but again, if you want to be accepted as part of society it makes no sense to me to make your point by having a parade/day/month for just your group.
Maybe I don't get it because I don't give a rats if gays want to get married, and find it a huge double standard that a hetrosexual couple living together can become "common law" spouses for legal purposes but the same does not apply to a gay couple, even though neither walked down the aisle. If the bible bashers have a problem with gay marraige then God bless (pun intended) but why can't a gay couple have a civil ceremony?
I guess my phylosophy is "live and let live, but lets all live within the same laws...no exceptions."
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
I really dont understand why you object so much to the turban/ helmet law. Why is it so bad?
I agree with you on the rest though Mankie. Although I guess that the Jewish race itself can be viewed like an exclusive club. I guess that insular nature is part of their reason for their persecution.
I'm not picking on them because of their beliefs markie...I just think that if you live in a country then you should live within it's laws and not have them changed to suit you...if it was the yorkshire pudding brigade and their cloth caps I would feel exactly the same about the issue.
I have no feelings either way about the Jewish in-crowd or any other group for that matter, but don't segregate yourselves then bitch about being segregated...like the gay pride movement, why can't you all just be gay and shut the hell up? It's not like we have a "straight pride" march. [/b]
Well, if everyone thought your way, there probably *wouldn't* be a need for such organizations. Sadly, it ain't so. Mankie for prez! Interns, beware!
-
To go off on a tangent a bit, I saw William Bennett on Tim Russert on Sunday and, man, is that man awful and evil. Here's his justification against gay marriages: "There are sisters who love each other, and brothers who love each other, but we're not going to sanction those relationships with marriage, are we? Just because there's love doesn't mean that we have to allow for marriage. Marriage is an institution with standards and it's essential to our nation." When asked how allowing gay marriages weakens the institution, he answered, "we don't let sisters and brothers marry, even though they love each other."
I should know by now that I can't watch this kind of shit because I just can't see straight for hours afterwards.
By the way, those aren't actual quotes from him, but it is very close.
-
Bags, if you want to really get pissed off, try listening to Michael Savage on am radio...he's nothing more than a hate-monger. Or try that Limbaugh or Hannity idiot. They are so narrow minded that they will find a way to blame the liberals if it rained during their golf game.
By the way, has anyone ever listened to that Dr. Laura bitch? She is the most sarcastic cow I've ever heard, and gives the most bullshit advice I've ever heard of.
XM is becoming closer to reality in my car with each passing day.
-
I've tried listening to Limbaugh a couple times. Look, I know I hate the man, but I want to say so from a place of knowledge. But I couldn't get through 5 minutes. This was a while back, and yes, he basically started to blame erosion of the earth on Hillary Clinton. I had to change the station or threaten the lives of the motorists around me.
Dr. Laura is so screwed that I actually find her funny. In her early days, that is. She's taken her schtick a bit to far now and is just plain insane.
-
It also cracks me up how these right wing radio nut cases can't let the Clintons go. All they do is talk about them constantly. They're doing Hilary a great favor by mentioning her running for the White House, if she decides to do it she can always use the slogan, "Piss the talk radio nazis off, vote for Hilary"
-
Originally posted by mankie:
By the way, has anyone ever listened to that Dr. Laura bitch? She is the most sarcastic cow I've ever heard, and gives the most bullshit advice I've ever heard of.
XM is becoming closer to reality in my car with each passing day.
>>
>Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses sex advice
>to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that as
>an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according
>to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance.
>
>The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident,
>which was posted on the Internet:
>
>Dear Dr. Laura:
>
>Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
>have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that
>knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
>the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
>Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
>
>I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the
>specific laws and how to follow them:
>
>a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates
>pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors.
>They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
>
>b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
>Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
>price for her?
>
>c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
>her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is,
>how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
>
>d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
>female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A
>friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
>Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
>
>e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
>35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
>to kill him myself?
>
>f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
>abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
>homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
>
>g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
>have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
>glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle
>room here?
>
>h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
>around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by
>Lev.19:27. How should they die?
>
>I) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
>me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
>
>j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
>different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
>garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
>blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
>necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
>together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to
>death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep
>with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
>
>I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
>you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
>eternal and unchanging.
>
>Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,
>
>Patrick Rhoades
-
what a sassy pants!