Immigration policy has come under much scrutiny in recent days. I would like to focus on one key part of immigration policy that has escaped much commentary – and much notice: the UK citizenship test.
I know more about this test and immigration than most. Virtually all commentary has come from those that never genuinely engaged with the immigration process or possess much knowledge about the experience of being an immigrant. I moved to the United Kingdom in 2001 after living for two years in Ireland. Arguments that successful governments lack any control over immigration numbers and that anybody could become a citizen are truly ignorant of the reality for people like me who came to the UK from non-EU countries. I have had to jump any number of hurdles from applications for a student visa, work visas and beyond that do not apply to EU citizens.
The UK citizenship test is accepted by all major political parties as a part of their immigration policy. The test is required for permanent residency and not only for citizenship. I have criticised the test in various forums including BBC Radio 4 and published research. The problems with the test had been threefold. First, it had been woefully out of date. The second edition of the test was published in March 2007 and was left unrevised until a new third edition was published this year. Various facts from demographics to the functions of now disbanded government departments and programmes littered the test to the point where the “correct” answer to many questions had become factually untrue. For example, the test claimed the correct answer to a question about the number of MPs was 646 (when it is 650) and that the correct answers to a question about where to acquire a national insurance number were both (and you must get both right to get the question “correct”) JobCentre Plus (which is factually true) and the Social Security Office (which was disbanded years ago).
A second problem with the test is that it failed to cover subjects such as British history and culture and basic points of law. This is all the more curious because the second edition handbook – from which questions are taken – has chapters on both subjects, but these are the only two chapters explicitly not included on the test. So new residents need never have heard of the Bard or the Civil War. Nor need new citizens know how to report a crime to the police.
The new third edition of the citizenship test addresses these problems by making them worse. It ‘solves’ the problem of getting the number of MPs incorrect by not mentioning their number at all. Likewise, the problem of now obsolete government departments and programmes is ‘solved’ by mentioning as few as possible. And gone is any mention of education: new residents need not know what is a GSCE or an A-level nor the national curriculum in any part of the UK. Or that background checks are required for persons working with children. Education is clearly something new residents need not know according to the current government’s deeply flawed political vision.
The third edition makes other mistakes. Earlier editions had chapters of similar lengths. The third edition has chapters that are no longer numbered and each is of widely varying length from one page of text to over 100 pages. It is unknown whether each chapter will share equal weight. The problem of omitting all British history and culture is ‘solved’ by making a chapter on this subject the largest. But what facts about history and culture are included? We have facts to be memorized such as that Sake Dean Mahomet – the founder of the Hindoostane Coffee House in George Street, London credited as the first curry house in Britain – eloped to Ireland with ‘an Irish girl’ named Jane Daly in 1782 and moving to Britain in 1786. I love a curry more than any other food and I do not protest inclusion of this world historical fact concerning Britain’s first curry house, but must all immigrants be required to know the love lives of anyone? The government’s answer is ‘yes’ and this cannot be right.
There is a similar problem with the test’s inclusion of basic law. The former handbook includes information about how to report a crime and their rights if arrested. There is also information about how to contact emergency services. This has all been removed in the current handbook: new immigrants will not be required to know any of this. This is a major mistake. It is difficult to understand why such fundamental everyday facts have been overlooked for a handbook that claims to be a practical guide for new residents.
A third problem with the second edition is lack of purpose – what is the test for? The second edition’s subtitle was ‘A Journey to Citizenship’ – this is now revised for the third edition to ‘A Guide for New Residents’ which is more accurate: what we commonly refer to as the citizenship test is actually a test that must be passed for permanent residency and one must possess that status before applying for citizenship. But the test remains in a deep crisis of identify. What is it for? History buffs? Until we understand its purpose, it will continue to fail in its aim to offer a useful test for citizenship.
The government should choose between two models. The first is the test as a barrier to immigration. If the purpose is to assist efforts to control immigration, then a citizenship test is not required and especially a test that so poorly designed to be unfair and impractical. Barriers can be created more effectively through extending residency requirements, for example.
A second model is the test as a bridge. This is where sitting the test is more of a formality to acquiring citizenship where the purpose is recognition of achievement. If the purpose of the test is to forge a bridge between new migrants and Britain, then the test would still require substantial revision.
It should be surprising – even shocking – that such a central part of immigration policy has such deep rooted problems in design and content. Immigration policy says something important about a country and its understanding of itself. This is closely tied to the purpose any citizenship test should serve. Should we test immigrants through knowledge exams? What purpose should this serve and what would we include? The government should reconsider the place of the citizenship test within immigration policy as a whole. And the sooner, the better.
————————————————————————-
Thom Brooks is reader in law at Durham University. His website is thombrooks.info and he tweets @thom_brooks
————————————————————————-
Yes these are the problems faced by most of the immigrants taking Life in UK test to gain UK citizenship and this can be a reason for people failing in test even though they take several times.