Life Goes On

Last night I went to a party. It was a triple celebration. One of my friends had just been bestowed with British citizenship and was at the same time celebrating his birthday. I can't remember the third reason, but the party was a success.

Another friend who was there, an Englishman, was highly questioning the concept of bestowing British citizenship on foreign nationals. He claimed that the country should most certainly welcome outsiders (who pay taxes!) and allow them to work, but there is no need to be handing out passports to them. I thought about this and as usual I can find support for both viewpoints. How long does one need to reside in a host country to become eligible for its citizenship? Is time the only criteria that should be applied? What about other factors? There are countries which would never grant citizenship to a migrant, such as Japan or Saudi Arabia, which have some of the strictest and most racist immigration agendas in the world. Then there are those, like the US and UK where it is easier to pledge allegiance to the new motherland by choice and be given equal rights, and where the only criteria seems to be the legal time frame. But is time a sufficient determinant? What if someone spends quarter or half their life in the host country and refuses to integrate into the society and accept even its fundamental values, like the right of free speech, freedom to, or from, any religion, and equality of all sexual orientations?

Should a government appointed body evaluate one's beliefs before we decide to give someone the privilege of citizenship? Aren't beliefs private? Yes and yes. I don't think it's a contradiction. It's a bit like converting to Judaism. In order to be admitted to be part of the Jewish people, a convert must accept the core beliefs of Judaism and do his best to put them to practice. Otherwise, what is the point of calling him or herself a Jew if they do not hold even the most fundamental Jewish principles. If a person wishes to join a tribe, a group or a state - it is logical to assume they wish to do so because the find something of value in that entity. If they disagree with the core and basic beliefs of that group - why would they wish to join in the first place? That's why I believe an evaluation is in place. If you can't accept the core British (not exclusively British of course) values - democracy, equality, individual freedom, free speech and so on, why should you even desire to wish to be British? That's why I believe a time period alone is not a sufficient reason for admittance to the tribe.