Immigrants into Citizens: A
London Institute of Education, England
London Institute of Education, England
How do you become a British citizen? Apart from finding yourself one, as an accident of birth, you can choose to become one. This paper looks at that process, because it reveals much about British government assumptions about the community, the role of the citizen, and appropriate education for citizenship. This in turn raises questions about how far these are appropriate assumptions for a country which aspires to be a democracy. I suggest at the end of the paper that studying the concrete example of the British process of becoming a citizen (i.e., naturalisation) may be a good route for school students into understanding the complexities of immigration and possible democratic responses. It will be very much a case of schooling as if democracy matters.
The focus of this paper is a close comparison of two
editions of a British government publication,
Life in the United Kingdom: A
Journey to Citizenship, designed to help prospective citizens pass a
citizenship test called Life in
the UK as part of the process of becoming a British citizen. To put
those publications in their context, I should briefly outline the
procedure for applying for citizenship.
This requires residence in the
An examination of the test and the publication intended
to prepare applicants for it, Life
in the United Kingdom: A Journey to Citizenship, is a useful route
to understanding the current British government notion of what it means
to be a British citizen. According to the
We want people acquiring British citizenship to embrace positively the
diversity of background, culture, and faiths that living in modern
The knowledge of life in the
What does an examination of the official
Life in the United Kingdom
publication reveal about current government understanding of what it
means to be a
LUK04 and LUK07 are similar in each having eight
chapters with the same titles (though not in the same order), though in
the chapter titles in LUK07, the words
Why was a radically new edition of
Life In the United Kingdom
required only some 18 months after the first applicants had used it to
take their tests? The main reason given was the perception that some of
the English of the first edition was too difficult even for speakers of
English at ESOL Entry Level 3, which was the standard required for the
test. A second edition expressed in more simple English was needed. Thus
where LUK04 talks of
“providing a safe haven” (p. 43), LUK07 has “offering safety” (p. 27).
There were also corrections of fact to be made. Two examples follow:
Charles II was recalled from exile not from France (LUK04, p. 28), but
from the Netherlands (LUK07, p. 15); “Great Britain” includes Northern
Ireland” (LUK04, p. 17) is corrected to ”the United Kingdom consists
today of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
. . . . The name ‘
The changes start with the covers of the two A4 publications. LUK04 has a glossy blue cover with its title in eyecatching15mm high white letters. Below the Home Office logo is the slogan ”Building a safe, just and tolerant society.” LUK07 is dark blue, its title 8mm high, and with no slogan beneath the logo.
LUK04 is an invitingly easy-to-read document. Its first
chapter, ”The Making of the United Kingdom,” a brief 25-page history of
the UK from the Roman conquest to the present day, like the rest of the
publication, is printed in large type, black on white. The same chapter
in LUK07 covers only 19 pages because it is printed four columns to the
page in a fine black type on a grey background. This made it quite hard
for me to read even in the brightest light.
LUK07 has a potentially useful new feature, a glossary
of terms used in the publication. However, it is a matter of straining
to see rather than simply reading because the word to be explained is in
white on a grey background and the explanation is in black on grey.
LUK07’s second new and potentially useful feature is photographs, but
without captions. Thus those who know
A glossary which is hard to read and captionless
illustrations seem to indicate a failure on the part of the writers of
LUK07 to put themselves in the shoes of their readers. It is hard to
understand why a book which purports to be a guide for people wishing to
join a community should be relatively inaccessible in such obvious ways.
In its presentation, LUK07 fails to treat others decently and at the
same time loses an opportunity to model the kind of civic behaviour a
democratic society would want to encourage in its citizens.
as we have seen, talks of people positively embracing diversity, but in
the gap between the two publications, tolerance as a value has been lost
to view. As we have seen, the slogan “Building a safe, just and tolerant
society” has gone from the Home Office logo on the cover. The
sub-section of chapter 3 headed “Religion and Tolerance” in LUK04
becomes in LUK07 simply ”Religion,” and the sentence, ”Although
There are also omissions of what might be regarded as indirect references to tolerance. LUK04, in its account of the House of Lords, which mentions that senior bishops are automatically members, points out that Life Peers include not only members of the various Christian denominations but also other faiths – Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist, as well as non-believers (LUK04, p. 63).  LUK07 does not mention the multi-faith character of the House of Lords.
LUK04 suggests that most people find it easy to get on well with neighbours by following a few simple rules like keeping noise to a reasonable level, respecting boundaries and exchanging friendly greetings (LUK04, p. 84). LUK07 concentrates on what to do about problems with neighbours (LUK07, p. 59). In a new final chapter called “Building Better Communities,“ returning to the neighbour theme, it says everyone should try to be a good neighbour and offers a few dos and don’ts such as ”make sure you know what days you can put out your rubbish for it to be collected” (LUK07, p. 107). This is a shift we shall see in other places from a welcoming attitude in LUK04 to a you-will-need-to-toe-the line-if-you-live-here approach in LUK07.
The invisibility of tolerance in LUK07 gives the
impression that the
Probably the most significant difference between LUK04
and LUK07 comes in Chapter Four: “How
The lack of clarity in LUK07 is signalled in the first
paragraph of chapter 4. This lists the range of institutions (monarchy,
parliament, civil service, etc.) which govern the
LUK04 and LUK07 both set out the role of the constitutional monarch, but LUK04 is much more explicit about the character of this limited and ceremonial role. One example is that LUK07says the Queen has the ceremonial role of opening parliament each year and “makes a speech that summarises the government’s policies for the year ahead” (LUK07, p. 44). A similar passage in LUK04 goes on to make it clear that “these are entirely the views of the Prime Minister and cabinet” (LUK04, p. 61).
LUK07 gives a brief account of the “first-past-the-post” electoral system in just over six lines (p. 44). LUK04, in 10 of its longer lines (p. 63), explains the significance of this system for constituencies, the formation of a government based on seats gained by parties rather than votes cast, and the main reason why the main political parties prefer this system to a proportional representation system. It is a fuller explanation which gives the reader some intellectual grasp of the process and its wider implications.
Both publications deal with another aspect of the party system, the Whips. According to LUK04, the Chief Whip ”will negotiate with the Speaker [of the House of Commons] over the timetable and order of business” (p. 62). In LUK07, the Chief Whip “arranges the schedule of proceedings in the House of Commons with the Speaker” (p. 44). A small change, but one which makes the process more opaque than it need be. It is hard to imagine that the change is in the interests of simpler English expression in LUK07.
LUK04 is explicit about the constitutional role of “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition,” emphasizing that it is funded by the Treasury and has a guaranteed amount of parliamentary time to debate matters of its own choice (LUK04, p. 58-9). LUK07 talks about the Opposition as the second largest party in parliament and its role in pointing out the government’s failures and weaknesses, but with no mention of its democratically significant constitutional status (p. 46).
LUK04 comments that people often distinguish between pressure groups and lobby groups, pointing out that the latter term is applied to the voice of commercial, financial, industrial, trade or professional organizations and not to voluntary bodies of ordinary citizens (p. 64). Under the heading ”Pressure and Lobby Groups,” LUK07 does not distinguish the two and refers to the Confederation of British Industry, the Consumers’ Association and Greenpeace all as pressure groups (p. 47).
Both editions set out the responsibilities of local government. LUK04 gives an explanation of the ”mandatory services” (education, housing, social services, passenger transport, fire service, rubbish collection, planning, environmental health, libraries) which local authorities are required by central government to provide, and explains that citizens can take them to court if they do not provide them (p. 66-67). LUK07 uses the term “mandatory services” but does not explain what this means (p. 48), nor is it in the glossary. LUK04 mentions that Government is exploring how some local services might be delivered by community groups. Some see this, it says, as diminishing the powers of local government, whereas others see it as a way of involving ordinary citizens in the way their area is run. This comment, although not strictly necessary to the account, reflects the way, noticeable in other places, that LUK04 suggests the typical citizen is someone who is community-minded and keen to participate. LUK07 gives the impression that the typical citizen is an obedient rule-follower.
Both editions deal with the
European laws, called directives, regulations or
framework decisions, have made a lot of difference to people’s rights in
Without a further gloss, “directives, regulations and
framework decisions” sound like alternative expressions with no
differences among the terms worth commenting on.
There is a pervasive and subtle difference between LUK04 and LUK07. LUK04 suggests a dynamic society in which everything is not as good as it could be, but in which it is possible to change things and which welcomes active citizens prepared to take civic initiatives. LUK07 tends to give the impression that the obedient rule-follower should be the norm.
discusses institutions as evolving from their historical context. The
account of the Northern Ireland Assembly, for instance, begins in 1922
with the establishment of the Northern Ireland Parliament, and then,
following the violence and terrorism, mentions the negotiated cease-fire
and the arrival at a power-sharing agreement (LUK04, p. 68-9). The civil
service in the
In places, LUK04 talks about what are seen as problems to be tackled. Declining participation in parliamentary elections, particularly by young people, for instance, is mentioned as a trend which government and political parties are seeking to reverse (LUK04, p. 74). There is no mention of this in LUK07. With the judiciary, too, LUK04 describes the system, and then suggests that some people feel that the process for choosing judges should be more transparent, and that judges should be more representative of the public, identifying women and ethnic minorities as under-represented. LUK07 has nothing about the way judges are currently chosen or anything about the need for reform.
As these examples indicate,
LUK04 presents the political community as a dynamic, ongoing system –
very much a democratic system – which can be changed by its citizens in
many cases. LUK07 presents a system to be fitted into and thus, perhaps
inadvertently, fails to emphasize the essentially democratic character
of the society the would-be citizen is hoping to join.
The Guide quoted earlier expressed the aspirations that those seeking British citizenship should positively embrace the diversity of life in modern Britain, play an active role in society, both economically and politically, and have a sense of belonging to a wider community (Guide, p. 7)--obvious and worthwhile aspirations and ones you would expect to be reflected in the framing of the Life in the United Kingdom document. Indeed they are in LUK04, but not to the same degree in LUK07.
Again it is a matter of offering a few examples to try to convey the general difference in tone between the two documents. For instance, in the section headed ”Leisure,” in chapter 5, ”Everyday Needs,” LUK04 mentions the large network of public footpaths in the UK, which “give access to some of the most beautiful countryside in Britain.” It goes on to explain that these are usually marked with signposts but that an Ordnance Survey Map (scale 1:25,000) is an accurate guide. These are available in bookshops and tourist information centres but can also be borrowed free of charge from libraries (LUK04, p. 100). All LUK07 has to say about footpaths is ”The UK has a large network of public footpaths in the countryside” (LUK07, p. 70).
In similar vein, LUK04 and LUK07 both mention the possibilities that exist for adult education. LUK04 details with specific examples the wide range of courses available--karate, arts and crafts, car maintenance, foreign languages-- their relatively low cost, the time of year they usually start, and how to find out about them. LUK07 is less specific about the courses, mentioning only sports, learning a musical instrument or a new language, and beyond that says that details are available from the local library, college or adult education centre.
In their respective chapters on ”Sources of Help and Information,” both deal with Public Libraries. LUK04 supplies the reader with plenty of information about the whole business of using a public library, making requests for books, whom to approach for information and so on (LUK04, p. 121-2). LUK07 provides the minimum of information (LUK07, p. 102). Both mention that to borrow material from a public library, rather than simply consult it there, it is necessary to become a member, but LUK04 stresses how easy this is (LUK04, p. 121).
Both editions have information
about the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), but LUK04, by supplying more
detailed information about the number of CAB offices there are in the UK
and stating that ”millions of people use the service each year”
makes it seem more user-friendly and available. It also mentions
that the service is largely staffed by trained volunteers and indicates
that the service welcomes volunteers (LUK04, p. 122-3). This reinforces
the message, which both editions aspire to give, that those seeking
British citizenship are encouraged to play an active role in society.
LUK07 has no mention that the service welcomes volunteers.
How do LUK04 and LUK07 compare
as good preparation tools for the test? On the strict criterion of
preparation for the test, and leaving on one side problems of
accessibility and legibility and looking only at content, LUK07 is
probably better than LUK04 because it teaches to the test. As we have
seen, it keeps information to the minimum and it has checkboxes headed
”Check That You Understand” at the end of each chapter to focus the
reader’s attention on likely test topics. So LUK07 as a tool for getting
an applicant through the test appears the more efficient document. But
what does that say about British society? It seems to say that this is a
society prepared to replace a more detailed, expansive and welcoming
document (LUK04) with one which more effectively enables prospective
citizens to pass an on-line test. One gets the impression that it is a
society which wants citizens first and foremost who can efficiently tick
What about the test itself?
Does it meet its own stated aims? Its rationale, we should recall, is
that people acquiring British citizenship should “embrace positively”
the diversity of modern
As to playing an active
economic and political role in society, the employment details and tax
office response required on the application form give some evidence that
the applicant is active economically. As far as evidence of interest or
involvement in political activity is concerned, the test can offer
evidence of political knowledge, but not candidates’ attitude to
involvement. Once again, the tests can test knowledge but not attitudes.
It would be wrong to give the impression that the publications and the test suggest that knowledge alone is relevant. The Guide and Life in the United Kingdom suggest that there is more to democratic citizenship than simply having knowledge, whether items of information or sophisticated bodies of knowledge. What they suggest, LUK04, as we have seen, more than LUK07, is that democratic citizens need to be certain sorts of people – fair, tolerant, decent, willing to share burdens with fellow citizens. Work in political philosophy and philosophy of education on the virtues citizens need (Callan,1997; Dagger,1997; White,1996) supports this view, suggesting that if citizens lack the appropriate democratic attitudes, even the most sophisticated democratic institutions and arrangements can fail to function adequately or, at worst, become corrupt. Good citizens need to be certain sorts of people: decent, helpful, willing on occasion to go the extra mile, having the courage to be whistle-blowers, tolerant of neighbours with different religious beliefs or none. As George Eliot saw:
the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs. (Eliot, 1965, p. 896)
A multiple-choice test of
facts is not going to reveal the faithful day-to-day living of a
democratic life. Yet this, rather than the fact that fellow citizens
know where the Prime Minister’s residence is, or the exact form of the
devolved administrations in
Having realised the importance of dispositions patterned into democratic practices, the temptation is to ask: Well then, how can we devise a test which will tell us whether a person has these? If we accept that they cannot be tested by multiple-choice questions, what other tests can be used to find out if would-be citizens have such dispositions? Further, how can we be sure that they are “the real thing” rather than a simulacrum? What about the would-be citizen who poses as a decent, law-biding, tolerant person but is not? What test will reliably identify such a person?
Work in philosophy of education (Davis, 1998; Davis, 1999) suggests that no such test can exist. Does this mean that the attitudes of our fellow citizens are forever opaque to us? Not at all. Most people would be able to make reasonably accurate judgements about the civic attitudes of their neighbours, work colleagues, or other people they come into frequent and close contact with. What it does mean is that not everything valuable in life can be tested by formal written tests. For years it has been a commonplace that, say, questionnaires about honesty can only test what a person says about his attitudes on a particular day. They cannot affirm or deny that this person has the engrained disposition of honesty which in an ongoing way informs his particular actions and attitudes. This problem is recognised by Ofsted (2006) in its account of assessment of the statutory citizenship programmes in school. It is acknowledged that there is a small place for the assessment of knowledge and a larger one for assessing participation and responsible action, for which different methods are appropriate (Ofsted, p. 40). These might include the way a school student behaves in school, in groups, takes volunteering initiatives, and so on.
If those who determine the
naturalisation process are thus to take seriously the aspiration that
applicants for citizenship should have the democratic virtues, to a
greater or lesser degree, they would have to devise very different means
from its present on-line test.
Tests, of whatever level of
sophistication, raise questions of fairness. Citizens born in the
Such courses might embody
“best practice” from school-level citizenship programmes, though shaped
to the needs and interests of adults rather than school students. Rather
than simply purveying information, they, like the school courses, might
encourage discussion of political and social issues and provide
opportunities for volunteering. The spirit would not be that of
instruction from a rule book so that people learn efficiently how to fit
in. Values, after all, can have different weightings and different forms
of expression, and exchanging views about the reasons behind others’
practices can be enlightening. For an everyday example, it seems obvious
to many people that ”first come, first served” is a good way of fairly
distributing some scarce goods. To others from societies where greater
emphasis is put on need, this may well seem a harsh, unfair practice.
These courses can therefore be envisaged as a two-way street for an
exchange of views about civic and social practices.
This paper has examined the recently introduced citizenship tests now part of the naturalisation process for those seeking to become British citizens. I suggested at the outset that any community’s procedures for admitting new citizens reveal its values and attitudes. In this case, examining two publications produced within fewer than three years of each other, both concerned with the admission of new citizens, proved illuminating. Attitudes to newcomers changed from the welcoming stance of “you will be able to get on here” (LUK04), to ”if you join this community you will need to toe the line” (LUK07). This matches a picture of the citizen in the first publication as an active participator invited to take part in a dynamic process (LUK04), and a picture in the second of a rather more passive role of fitting in to a pre-established grid of rules and expectations (LUK07). Both publications (though more emphatically LUK04) contained the reasonable aspiration that citizens need certain civic virtues to function in a democratic society. Unfortunately the assumption that this could be measured by an on-line multiple choice test has led to a seemingly efficient, tick-the-boxes solution completely inappropriate to the task. This gives the regrettable impression of a community which pays only lip service to democratic values. This is underlined further by the failure to treat citizens seeking to join the community fairly in relation to citizens born and brought up in the country.
A society which aspires to be
a democracy needs to think as carefully about its procedures for
admitting new citizens as it does about internal issues of democratic
principle and practice. At this point, this paper links with classical
and modern discussions of immigration, the rights of foreigners,
refugees, stateless persons (Kant, 1795; Honig, 2001; Rawls, 2002;
Benhabib, 2004; Benhabib, 2006) and the appropriate attitude of just
states to those beyond their borders. The paper provides an entry point
for school students in the
In a society concerned with schooling as if democracy mattered, teachers of citizenship could profitably encourage their students to compare the two editions of Life in The United Kingdom as a case study. What kind of knowledge do potential citizens of a democracy need? What kinds of values should they be committed to? What civic virtues should they possess? Should we assess whether they possess the relevant attitudes and values, and if so, how? These are familiar questions for civic education, but are seen in a new light in the context of appropriate democratic immigration procedures in a world of increasing migratory movement.
British citizenship may come simply from being born in the
£655 for an individual
application or £735 for a joint application by spouses or civil
Information about the test can be found at
www.lifeintheuktest.gov.uk/. The cost for applicants is £34.
The multiple choice questions take four forms: choosing one
correct answer from four options; deciding whether a statement
is true or false; choosing two correct answers from four
options; and saying which of two statements is true.
For a three-month period
(April to June 2007), both editions were in use.
Life Peers, as distinct from
hereditary peers, are
working peers appointed for
their own lifetimes to the second chamber, often for their
The New and the Old: The
report of the “Life in the
Benhabib, S. (2002). The
claims of culture: Equality and diversity in the global
Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others: Aliens, residents and citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benhabib, S. (2006).
Another cosmopolitanism, with commentaries by Jeremy
Waldron, Bonnie Honig, Will Kymlicka.
Callan, E.(1997). Creating citizens: Political education and liberal democracy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Callan, E. (2005). The ethics of assimilation. Ethics, 115, 471-500.
Dagger, R.(1997). Civic
virtues: Rights, citizenship and republican liberalism.
Crick, B.(2000). Essays on
Dummett, M.(2001). On
immigration and refugees.
Eliot, G. (1965; first published 1871-2). Middlemarch. Penguin.
Honig B.(2001). Democracy
and the foreigner. Princeton:
Life in the
Life in the
Naturalisation as a British citizen: A guide for applicants. Available as pdf at www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/
Ofsted. (2006). Towards consensus? Citizenship in secondary schools . www.ofsted.gov.uk
Rawls, J. (2002). The law
Sen, A. (2006). Identity
and violence: The illusion of destiny.
The new and the old: The report of the “Life in the
White, P. (1996).
Civic virtues and public schooling: Educating citizens for a