Citizenship - The Citizenship Testing Discussion Paper (3 Viewers)

[Stott Despoja]

This isn't about blacks, whites or racism but about the ideology of multiculturalism versus integration. Although Howard is a populist leader, his agenda here is not to gain popularity but to implement his ideological vision - that is, to eradicate multiculturalism in Australia. The current wave of antagonism against Australian Muslims pretty much provides Howard with sufficient popular backing to do so.

The idea of multiculturalism has always involved a degree of integration, so it's difficult to argue that it's a case of one versus the other. With that in mind, I think that that a better representation would be to say that it's a case of political integration versus cultural integration - both operate within a multicultural framework of some sort and both require a degree of integration on the part of the minorities (and tolerance, if not acceptance, from the majority), but whereas political integration grants greater cultural freedoms to minority groups, cultural integration requires a more concerted effort on the part of minority groups to integrate with the 'mainstream culture.' The discussion regarding the expected degree of integration adds yet another dimension to the debate.

In the case of the current federal Government, I think that it's hard to identify its preferred form of integration - whereas the rhetoric suggests that it's a case of cultural integration, the introductory documents seem to suggest that in practical terms it's nothing more than a case of altering current practices so that what is implicit is made explicit. Though it's easy to say that the Howard Government is on a bit of a cultural crusade, I'd like to see whether the proposed changes are real or whether it's just a case of an on the pulse government hijacking a practical reality and repackaging it in cultural rather than political terms. Will there be real change (for better or worse) or will it be nothing more than a populist political stunt?

 

[Napstar]

That is what I am getting at - how basic is Howard talking? English isn't my first language and while I think my English is good enough to get by, I would fall on my face if the test tested my grammar and spelling and my knowledge of possessive apostraphees and stuff like that.

You are waaay above the level of english competency they would be looking for in the test. It won't be a school certificate english exam.

--

As has been said already, this is really a way of saying to muslims that when conflict arises, "Australia first, Islam second". Accept it. We don't give a flying fuck about your Allah but we respect that you do in the same way we respect the crazy lady who chases the birds. This applies to christian fundamentalists as well. If you can live in our society peacefully and still obey your koran then fucking great. Enjoy your new home.

Australia has a fairly lacklustre history. Facts and figures should not be so important but the values test should be. As to the "Australian way of life": we will never get a true dictionary definition. It's a broad attitude of wank-slogans like "have a go" which appear far too often on Today Tonight. It should not be the case that migrants are expected to drink beer and watch sports, just that they contribute to and show respect for the community they're in. "Australian way of life", once more is a politically correct way of saying to minorities that they are no longer on their own playing field. They have chosen their place and if they want to fight our laws and customs, do it the good old democratic way. Through vocal reasoning (not religion)! A basic grasp of English would be a good start to this process.

Oh and don't eat puppies. You gooks.

 

[HotShot]

You are waaay above the level of english competency they would be looking for in the test. It won't be a school certificate english exam.

--

As has been said already, this is really a way of saying to muslims that when conflict arises, "Australia first, Islam second". Accept it. We don't give a flying fuck about your Allah but we respect that you do in the same way we respect the crazy lady who chases the birds. This applies to christian fundamentalists as well. If you can live in our society peacefully and still obey your koran then fucking great. Enjoy your new home.

That affects everyone including aussies - if you were respectful to other they will be respectful towards you. Dont expect people to take one-way shit. Some people here use the fact that these are muslims - make them into scapegoats.

 

[Napstar]

That affects everyone including aussies - if you were respectful to other they will be respectful towards you. Dont expect people to take one-way shit. Some people here use the fact that these are muslims - make them into scapegoats.

It surely does. Aussies must respect generally accepted values as well (more or less coded into the law). When they don't, criminal sanctions are imposed. The issue here is of citizenship which is a privilege, not a right. If a migrant truly wants to make this their new home then they should be prepared to accept its laws and customs. This is the one-way shit. Obey us or get the fuck out. We should respect everything else they do within the bounds of the law/acceptable practice, even the "wacky shit". If an established citizen wants to question social norms (in a non-violent process), then so be it! But you don't walk into a neighbours house and demand that they change the television channel.

I will respect any religious person so as their corresponding actions in the name of their belief do not affect me or others negatively. We live in a secular state. Based on developed christian values, I admit. But the law should not be altered because of passages in a holy book. I openly dismiss religion as a laughable hoax. But I do not condemn those who congregate in a peaceful manner to share their belief amongst themselves in a lawful way.

There is no denying that muslims are the scapegoat for current immigration issues. I agree wholeheartedly with you on that one. But the issues still exist.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

ok, well im not getting into the religious thing that seems to be going on in this thread at the moment...but on the topic of the citizenship test: if they really feel its necessary to introduce a test, then fine. But i object to there being things in the test that half of the native Australians in this country don't know. "What date is the melbourne cup" honestly, as if knowing that proves your worth as a person with Australian values! i doubt i could find anyone i know who knows those dates off the top of their heads. How can you expect an immigrant, who possibly may only have been here for like 2 years, to know? As for English testing, I think that to participate fully in Australian society, whether you are a citizen or not, you need to have a basic knowledge of English, that's true. But allowances need to be made for the fact that a lot of these immigrants may not have started learning English at all until they arrived here. The test should be no more and no less than the absolute bare minimum required for daily life, to be fair to those people who have difficulty. Not everyone is language-oriented, especially older generations. It's easier to learn and absorb a new language when you're young. Eg my best friend immigrated out here from Chile when she was about 2. She's now fully fluent in English and does fine (still not a citizen tho). Her parents, on the other hand, had a much harder time picking it up and still have trouble sometimes and stumble and make grammatical errors. Should we deny them citizenship if they went for it because of those little errors? i dont think so.

 

[S1M0]

ok, well im not getting into the religious thing that seems to be going on in this thread at the moment...but on the topic of the citizenship test: if they really feel its necessary to introduce a test, then fine. But i object to there being things in the test that half of the native Australians in this country don't know. "What date is the melbourne cup" honestly, as if knowing that proves your worth as a person with Australian values! i doubt i could find anyone i know who knows those dates off the top of their heads. How can you expect an immigrant, who possibly may only have been here for like 2 years, to know? As for English testing, I think that to participate fully in Australian society, whether you are a citizen or not, you need to have a basic knowledge of English, that's true. But allowances need to be made for the fact that a lot of these immigrants may not have started learning English at all until they arrived here. The test should be no more and no less than the absolute bare minimum required for daily life, to be fair to those people who have difficulty. Not everyone is language-oriented, especially older generations. It's easier to learn and absorb a new language when you're young. Eg my best friend immigrated out here from Chile when she was about 2. She's now fully fluent in English and does fine (still not a citizen tho). Her parents, on the other hand, had a much harder time picking it up and still have trouble sometimes and stumble and make grammatical errors. Should we deny them citizenship if they went for it because of those little errors? i dont think so.

Very well said.

 

[HotShot]

If an established citizen wants to question social norms (in a non-violent process), then so be it! But you don't walk into a neighbours house and demand that they change the television channel.

But who does that? No one does that - they are not enough immigrants in the first place and such acts hardly occur.

There is no denying that muslims are the scapegoat for current immigration issues. I agree wholeheartedly with you on that one. But the issues still exist.

Here is another - most of the crap you hear on the news - the things that occur with immigrants they are mostly not citizens. Just PRS or maybe work or student visas.

In my opinion there isnt much and I believe these test are just to satisfy the general public into notion of security when in realty - if someone really hated the country and they are a citizen Australia they will still do their violent shit regardless of these tests.

 

[_dhj_]

Why is it such a problem if people can't speak English. Honestly, it creates more jobs for interpretors and government departments. So what if you can't communicate with someone who can't speak English, and is a migrant? Those people tend to gather in their cultural communities where they're able to get by quite well. With that being the case there's not a problem in terms of communication. I think many "native" (i.e. anglo) Australians get offended by the fact that when they physically enter those communities they're not the dominant or majority group, because they're so used to being dominant and in the majority - so used to the notion that Australia should work to the advantage of (anglo) Australians. In my opinion, English standards should not be made compulsory simply because it is spoken by the majority.

 

[afdgargio]

Why is it such a problem if people can't speak English. Honestly, it creates more jobs for interpretors and government departments.

Broken window fallacy!

 

[_dhj_]

The matching of skills, interest and job preference with demand complicates the so called broken window "fallacy" in the employment context.

 

[banco55]

Why is it such a problem if people can't speak English. Honestly, it creates more jobs for interpretors and government departments. So what if you can't communicate with someone who can't speak English, and is a migrant? Those people tend to gather in their cultural communities where they're able to get by quite well. With that being the case there's not a problem in terms of communication. I think many "native" (i.e. anglo) Australians get offended by the fact that when they physically enter those communities they're not the dominant or majority group, because they're so used to being dominant and in the majority - so used to the notion that Australia should work to the advantage of (anglo) Australians. In my opinion, English standards should not be made compulsory simply because it is spoken by the majority.

Well for one thing I think a lot of Australians would object to spending a lot of tax dollars supporting extensive translation services etc. We should be getting immigrants that are going to be a net economic gain not immigrants that are going to be a net economic drain. Plus if they can't speak english the chances of them getting a job will be reduced and the likelihood of them getting lots of centerlink benefits goes up.

 

[_dhj_]

Well if they can't speak english the chances of them getting centerlink benefits is reduced because the welfare system is designed to be complicated paperwork wise. If you can't speak english you're less likely to be able to understand forms, departments and the "system". In reality people who can't speak English are more likely to find low income employment - and let's face it, somebody has to do low income jobs.

 

[gerhard]

the melbourne cup isnt even on the same day every year

talk about a trick question

 

[The Brucemaster]

Great points but I tend to disagree on one issue:



Any adult immigrant (not refugees) who wishes to come over here should have at least commenced a practical level of English. The bare minimum for daily life is all that should be required, yes, but no less. Immigration is not an overnight decision. The paperwork usually takes several years and in that time some effort should be applied to learn the language. Broken sentences and poor grammar are fine but they should not need a translator to order their dinner.

What about those immigrants who don't have any access to English language facilities in their country of origin?
I imagine many refugees would be a bit upset to say the least if the Government said, 'look, we know there's a war or a crazy government at the moment but if you don't mind we prefer it if you speak English so before you leave if you'd just like to take a bit of time to learn the language that'd be great.'

However, once immigrants are here they have to be here a minimum of four years before they can gain citizenship and in that time I don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect that they seek to gain a working knowledge of the English language.

Australian values, on the other hand is a very messy issue. People seem to think that Australian values means an understanding of how a BBQ works, a detailed knowledge of the form guide and the ability to consume large amounts of alcohol.
Reading the original article in the Herald, however, it mentions freedom of speech, freedom of religion, respect for the individual, respect for the law and embracing the spirit of compassion for those in need.
Now putting aside all arguments about whether the Howard Government exhibits a spirit of compassion for those in need, I again don't see it as unreasonable that immigrants are expected to respect some of the fundamental aspects of our democracy and obey our laws.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Australian values, on the other hand is a very messy issue. People seem to think that Australian values means an understanding of how a BBQ works, a detailed knowledge of the form guide and the ability to consume large amounts of alcohol.

Funnily enough I've actually only read that from articles strongly against the citizenship test who are trying to ridicule the idea of 'Australian values'.

 

[banco55]

Funnily enough I've actually only read that from articles strongly against the citizenship test who are trying to ridicule the idea of 'Australian values'.

Agreed. I frankly think talking about western values versus australian values is probably more helpful. We don't want immigrants who have serious qualms with regards to western values or an antipathy towards western values. Unfortunately you can't test for that. If for example you believe that the mullahocracy in Iran is a good form of government or you think Saudi Arabia's attitude to religious freedom/women's rights is admirable I hope you aren't allowed to become a citizen.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Agreed. I frankly think talking about western values versus australian values is probably more helpful. We don't want immigrants who have serious qualms with regards to western values or an antipathy towards western values. Unfortunately you can't test for that. If for example you believe that the mullahocracy in Iran is a good form of government or you think Saudi Arabia's attitude to religious freedom/women's rights is admirable I hope you aren't allowed to become a citizen.

Yeah but what about the people that are already Australian citizens, some from birth, who undoubtedly believe that there are other, superior forms of governments to democracy? I think we have to make a distinction between those who may disagree with, but still respect the freedoms and laws of our country and those who are actively opposed to them.
I, for example, disagree strongly with the Howard Government's ideas and methodologies in regards to religious tolerance, namely with the Muslim community but that doesn't mean I don't respect the fact that he was democratically elected and therefore has a right to pursue policies based on his party ideology.

 

[banco55]

Yeah but what about the people that are already Australian citizens, some from birth, who undoubtedly believe that there are other, superior forms of governments to democracy? I think we have to make a distinction between those who may disagree with, but still respect the freedoms and laws of our country and those who are actively opposed to them.
I, for example, disagree strongly with the Howard Government's ideas and methodologies in regards to religious tolerance, namely with the Muslim community but that doesn't mean I don't respect the fact that he was democratically elected and therefore has a right to pursue policies based on his party ideology.

Of course we are stuck with people who were born here whatever their views are. We can however choose who gets citizenship and given that past experience tells us that the group of people that have the highest percentage of people who hold views that are anathema to western values are muslims we should restrict immigration of muslims in favour of a groups like the chinese, sikhs, vietnamese, koreans etc.

 

[HotShot]

Of course we are stuck with people who were born here whatever their views are. We can however choose who gets citizenship and given that past experience tells us that the group of people that have the highest percentage of people who hold views that are anathema to western values are muslims we should restrict immigration of muslims in favour of a groups like the chinese, sikhs, vietnamese, koreans etc.

Muslims and sikhs are not a race - lol

There are chinese, vitenamese etc muslims.

 

[banco55]

Muslims and sikhs are not a race - lol

There are chinese, vitenamese etc muslims.

I know but in China only 1-2% are muslims and in vietnam it's probably even lower so if you allow 50000 chinese to immigrate versus 50000 yemenis which group do you think is likely to contain far more muslim nutcases?