February 25, 2008
Becoming a British citizen
I am just back from watching a citizenship ceremony at the Tower of London. The new Britons swear an oath of loyalty to the crown, in which they are referred to as subjects rather than citizens. Then they go and get a certficate and their photo taken with a man in a fancy uniform, in front of a Union Jack and a portrait of the Queen. Then everybody sings the national anthem: just the first two verses, so that the new citizens do not have to engage with that confusing passage about “crushing rebellious Scots”.
The citizenship ceremony is a new thing in Britain. One of my neighbours at the FT recalls that when he became a citizen many years ago, all that happened was that he got a letter from the Home Secretary saying that he was “minded” to grant him citizenship. He then had to go a local solicitor’s office and swear an oath of loyalty to the monarch. The solicitor said merrily - “I’ll give her a call and tell her.”
I always found this British casualness about citizenship quite re-assuring. It seems self-confident and under-stated - which are two of the better national characteristics. But 9/11 and an increasing awareness of the impact of immigration on Britain has changed things. The government brought in a citizenship ceremony - loosely modelled on the US. The first one took place in Britain in January, 2004.
I found today’s ceremony genuinely moving. My favourite family group was a mother, father and daughter from China - the little girl in bright red, plastic raincoat, holding up her certificate for the cameras. The sheer range of places people have come from is dazzling. They announce the birth-place of each new citizen, as they come up to get their certificates. They got as far as 16 countries, before one was repeated - Australia. The roll-call went: Sierra Leone, Australia, Colombia, Hong Kong, Bulgaria, Somalia, Congo, Uganda, Ivory Coast, the Phillipines, the USA, China, New Zealand, South Africa, Bangladesh, Australia (again). There were also former Turks, Russians and Thais. The largest single contingent were Bangladeshis. But then came Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the US.
Where else would you get such a diverse range of new immigrants.?Perhaps only in New York. And maybe not even there.
Toronto in Canada (where I live) makes a claim to be being the most ethnically diverse city on the planet. The 2006 census established that approximately half the city population of 2.4 milion was born outside Canada.
Posted by: Andy Clarke | February 25th, 2008 at 5:30 pm | Report this commentIt all sounds v nice but you forgot to mention that in 50 years’ time, the grandchildren of naturalised Benglais and W Indians will still be referred to as “Asian Youth” as “West Indian Youth” and discriminated against, despite having never lived anywhere but England.
Best,
P (a foreigner!)
Posted by: Pacifist | February 25th, 2008 at 5:51 pm | Report this commentWhat is so moving about the creeping Americanisation (sorry, Americanization) of every aspect of life in the UK today? For people who prefer that sort of thing, then there is New York.
The Economist has already gone the way of the sewer; petroleum has dried up, now there is greasy oil; do not invest in property, only in real estate (yes, really).
For anyone who truly cares about cultural diversity, as well as refined culture, these trends are alarming.
Posted by: RCS | February 25th, 2008 at 5:55 pm | Report this commentHere Here. Citizenship is a privilege laden with meaning and a ceremony to recognise that privilege is only proper. Such recognition is long overdue. It should be akin to graduation day. Both to convey the significance of such a step to a diverse range of new citizens and remind the rest of us of our shared heritage.
Posted by: Ben | February 25th, 2008 at 7:51 pm | Report this comment‘Subjects’ of Her Majesty is really demeaning. I wouldn’t take on British citizenship in principle.
Posted by: Oliver Cromwell | February 25th, 2008 at 8:12 pm | Report this commentWhere else? Anywhere. In the global economy “immigration exceptionalism” doesn´t exist.
I notice from the list a number of nations from the Commonwealth (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Bangladesh, Sierra Leona, Uganda) And all the four largest contingents were former British colonies (Australia, USA, New Zealand and Bangladesh)
In Spain the only change is that the largest contingents come from former Spanish colonies (Ecuador, Colombia, Morocco) and one LatinEuropean country: Romania. Next comes…the UK.
And, of course, there is a neverending source of population that appears in anywhere: China (twice in the UK with Hong Kong, which is part of China even if former British colony too)
During the last four years Spain has received a flow of immigrants three times larger than the UK, almost four million people from all nations of the World…and one of the largest contingents of immigrants come from the United Kingdom, hehe.
Posted by: Enrique | February 26th, 2008 at 2:23 am | Report this commentIf you take a closer look at the Spanish figures, Enrique, you’ll see a big demographic difference. The UK immigrants are far more likely to be retirees. With them, Spain is importing capital, invested in the property market. With the other nationalities, Spain is importing labour.
Posted by: bert | February 26th, 2008 at 10:50 am | Report this commentIt’s an open question which of these two imports has been more disruptive for Spaniards. Do you see a backlash against either?
Do UK retirees really apply for Spanish nationality? I always thought they only ask for a residence permit. Why would they need Spanish citizenship when buying a house in Andalusia? They can just transfer their EU medical insurance from UK to Spain, continue to get UK pension in Spain and live happily ever after…
Posted by: Russian | February 26th, 2008 at 3:00 pm | Report this commentIt’s typical that we get ourselves worked up into a lather about immigration, identity and citizenship, when in fact British citizenship is an anemic entity:
We are subjects of a hereditary monarch, with not a single inalienable right that cannot be taken from us by a simple majority in our sovereign parliament, where the separation of powers is a dimly perceived foreign innovation and the upper house is entirely unelected and remains partly hereditary.
With such outdated, unsuited institutions is it any wonder that the UK spends so much time navel gazing and fretting about immigration and the EU - ironically, it is the European Charter that gives us the only inalienable rights we have.
Posted by: Dave | February 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Report this commentInalienable or not, they have proven far more lasting than the rights conferred by written constitutions anywhere in the world. Inalienable rights, guaranteed rights, natural rights, human rights, civil liberties: these are only as strong as the will and force that back them up. That is, they hinge on the will of those in power to stay there, not on the eloquence with which a group says they are there to stay. And the mere fact that the English Bill of Rights of 1689, for instance, was not declared immutable, does not mean it will ever be changed. A true tradition is stronger than a grandiose document.
This is why Britain has the longest continuous period without political upheaval in the world — effectively stable since the Restoration. And every other country in the world that was self-determined at the time has since then experienced dictatorships, revolutions, civil wars, invasions, occupations and other upheavals.
Your view of British governance is too grim. The country’s government was the best organised in the world for the better part of a century and a half, and is still very modern, efficient, and just. Do not be taken in by the media’s exaggeration of mistakes — it is natural, it is good, it is even necessary for continuous improvement, but — it is misleading. To get a more accurate picture, try living somewhere else for a few years or longer.
Posted by: John | February 26th, 2008 at 8:26 pm | Report this commentExactly, Russian.
I think Enrique’s numbers include people who register as residents at Spanish town halls, which is rather less drastic a step than changing nationality.
On citizenship ceremonies, I have nothing against them. But to be of any lasting use they have to be symbolic of something real. That is, genuine integration, within mixed neighbourhoods; mutual tolerance, openness to social mobility and social change.
Posted by: bert | February 27th, 2008 at 12:57 am | Report this commentAll that good liberal stuff, which requires input from both immigrant and host populations.
The opposite - separateness, social conservatism, mutual suspicion - have jusifiably become the principal targets of critics of multiculturalism.
Swearing allegiance to the crown is one thing, but what about buying into being British? In the US, the oath ceremony involves civic questions, such as what are the 52 states? who advises the President? who wrote the national anthem? what do the stars on the flag mean? etc. Perhaps the UK ceremony should include a Q&A session too: list 5 British PMs or Monarchs, 5 British historical events, 5 British counties or cities, 5 famous British personalities and 5 inventions by Brits…
Posted by: elizabeth | February 27th, 2008 at 2:07 am | Report this commentI have a suspicion all 5 of those inventions would most likely be Scottish…just saying.
Posted by: Scott | February 27th, 2008 at 3:27 am | Report this commentYes, i was talking about people from other countries who register as residents (padrón) I don´t know how many of those four million new residents have chosen Spanish nationality.
Posted by: Enrique | February 27th, 2008 at 5:43 am | Report this commentThe 52 states? I thought there were 50 states…
Citizenship ceremonies are creepy, as are citizenship tests. My position is: if you do the time, you get your passport.
I do not see why the government should be the arbiter of taste as regards nationality.
“I always found this British casualness about citizenship quite re-assuring. It seems self-confident and under-stated - which are two of the better national characteristics.”
I agree completely. But those days are gone, I’m afraid.
Posted by: James Kingdom | February 27th, 2008 at 8:11 am | Report this commentPursuant to the British Nationality Act 1981, the legal category British “subject” (i.e., citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies) was replaced as of the beginning of 1983 by the three categories: British citizen, British Dependent Territories citizen and British Overseas citizen. (That Act also recognized the existence of dual and multiple nationality.) Pursuant to the Treaty of Maastricht, which Parliament adopted as UK law in the early 1990s, all persons holding British nationality are also “citizens” of the European Union having the right to move and reside freely within the territory of all EU member states, subject to limitations and conditions in that Treaty and the EU legislation adopted to make that Treaty provision effective. (That Treaty also provides that EU citizenship complements and does not replace UK citizenship and prohibits within the EU any discrimination on grounds of member state nationality.) For Buddhists and atheists, a song that invokes saving of the monarch by God may not convey much meaning. For considerations such as these, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, to seep into the depths of UK civil service practice, might well require looking many decades into the future. The hymn Rule Britainia might have more significance as to the past, as well as (at least for Falkland Islanders, Gibraltarians and the soldiers of the Royal Gurkha Rifles and those serving in Afganistan and Iraq) for the future.
Posted by: murphymurphy | February 27th, 2008 at 11:23 am | Report this commentOn the two “extra” US states, was Elizabeth referring to Israel and the UK?….
Posted by: Christian G. | February 28th, 2008 at 3:54 pm | Report this commentImmigration and the movement of peoples is a fascinating area of study. As more and more areas of the world become uninhabitable due to desertification and overpopulation, the UK will become ever more crowded given its extremely generous immigration quotas. It is currently taking in about double the legal intake of Canada and Australia. Interestingly enough, both Canada and Australia source about a third of their immigrants from the UK!
Posted by: Pamela Griffiths, New York. USA. | March 1st, 2008 at 1:52 pm | Report this comment