Should Migrants have to answer Citizenship test in English?

I think that every imigrant should have to speak the national language...I think it's important for everybody to embrace the language along with the culture of the country to whom he/she immigrates! It's arrogant and selfish to choose otherwise! Well, in my opinion, anyhow...

I agree with the proposal but there should be compensations alongside.

I think anyone coming to Australia should speak English in public (you can speak your own language at home). I think anyone coming to Australia should pass the English test.
I find it annoying when people speak another language other than English either in my class or in public.

I'm an Asian. You may call me a foreigner but I try my best to keep my mother language at a minimum during public.

However, on the other hand, there MUST be a compensation to the strict rules. I think every Australian should recognise that they do not own this land -

In History, this is a fact, Captain Cook, an English, explored here. Captain Arthur Philip then, following Captain Cook's discovery, brought English men and women convicts across in the early 19th century.

So there must be a compensation to the tougher rules:
I think it is reasonable, to have in the Australian Passport, a criteria stating each and everyone's descendancy. It may be English. It may be Irish. But none of us was born and bred here in Australia, except for the Indigenous Australians.

I think when Australians arrive in Australia, they must tick their box of descendancy. It may be 2 to 3 countries where their grandparents or great grandparents came from; but at least it acknowledges the truth.

winglovesall said:

I think anyone coming to Australia should speak English in public (you can speak your own language at home). I think anyone coming to Australia should pass the English test.
I find it annoying when people speak another language other than English either in my class or in public.

Click to expand...

I agree with the english test. But I disagree with english being the only language allowed spoken in public.

lol

You're not serious are you?
You find it annoying when people speak a foreign language.

Are you also suggesting a new law in the book of law enforcements...

I can imagine already,

"This is Officer David Fermont. You're under arrest for communicating in an un-recognisable language according to rule 335 section A . What ever you say now may be used against you in the court of law."

I'm an Asian. You may call me a foreigner but I try my best to keep my mother language at a minimum during public.

Click to expand...

No, if you're a citizen you're not a foreigner. Gosh, we're not racial profiling. You need to stand up for your identity, since when did you hide away your identity and let the racist rule your life.

However, on the other hand, there MUST be a compensation to the strict rules. I think every Australian should recognise that they do not own this land -

In History, this is a fact, Captain Cook, an English, explored here. Captain Arthur Philip then, following Captain Cook's discovery, brought English men and women convicts across in the early 19th century.

So there must be a compensation to the tougher rules:
I think it is reasonable, to have in the Australian Passport, a criteria stating each and everyone's descendancy. It may be English. It may be Irish. But none of us was born and bred here in Australia, except for the Indigenous Australians.

I think when Australians arrive in Australia, they must tick their box of descendancy. It may be 2 to 3 countries where their grandparents or great grandparents came from; but at least it acknowledges the truth.

Click to expand...

Sounds good in theory. But guess what.

You're an asian and you should know better.

The asians decendent records were wiped away by the Japanese in WW2. Most asians have different backgrounds, for example in asia a lot of people have chinese backgrounds.

In Macau people have portuguese backgrounds despite looking chinese.
Likewise in Hong Kong nearly all aboriginals of Hong Kong have English decendents... that is, they're not pure chinese.

My question now is, are you going to not let people in because of that.


Another issue is, China is opening up. A rich chinese guy wants to be a citizen and bring his wealth to Australia.

Guess what. All those rules will be excluded regardless on what Australia thinks. This is politics, if Mr China has 200 million and wants to become a Citizen...then theres nothing stopping him.

Thats reality!

winglovesall said:

However, on the other hand, there MUST be a compensation to the strict rules. I think every Australian should recognise that they do not own this land -

In History, this is a fact, Captain Cook, an English, explored here. Captain Arthur Philip then, following Captain Cook's discovery, brought English men and women convicts across in the early 19th century.

So there must be a compensation to the tougher rules:
I think it is reasonable, to have in the Australian Passport, a criteria stating each and everyone's descendancy. It may be English. It may be Irish. But none of us was born and bred here in Australia, except for the Indigenous Australians.

I think when Australians arrive in Australia, they must tick their box of descendancy. It may be 2 to 3 countries where their grandparents or great grandparents came from; but at least it acknowledges the truth.

Click to expand...

But what is this going to acheive ? And how far back do you go? I mean, with me, I think the first of my relatives not born in Australia was my great great great grandfather who was born in France. Why should I have to say I'm French when, in reality, I'm no more French then I am Chinese (I have no Chinese ancestry).

I was born here, I'm an Australian citizen, as were my parents and grandparents, so why should I have to pretend I'm not.

And what of those people that don't know there ancestry? Are we going to refuse them entry until they research their family trees, or is it ok for them to tick just any box?

Just my thoughts,

Steve

Steve, in response, you can tick either European or Asian or African or American - and for your case, you'd tick European

Because you're an Anglo-European Australian. I'm an Asian Australian. These terms are quite frequently used actually in today's Australia but more acknowledgement should be made.

winglovesall said:

However, on the other hand, there MUST be a compensation to the strict rules. I think every Australian should recognise that they do not own this land -


So there must be a compensation to the tougher rules:
I think it is reasonable, to have in the Australian Passport, a criteria stating each and everyone's descendancy. It may be English. It may be Irish. But none of us was born and bred here in Australia, except for the Indigenous Australians.

I think when Australians arrive in Australia, they must tick their box of descendancy. It may be 2 to 3 countries where their grandparents or great grandparents came from; but at least it acknowledges the truth.

Click to expand...

For how long do people not “own” the land? 200 years? 2000 years? Can descendents of the Moors in Spain own land? Can Chinese people in Indonesia or Malaysia own land?
If we’re going to take this “original owners” thing to the logical extreme, then any Aboriginal tribe which encroached upon another should also lose their ownership.

I think we've been here long enough to all be in together now. We've acknowledged the past - it's time to move on.

winglovesall said:

Steve, in response, you can tick either European or Asian or African or American - and for your case, you'd tick European

Because you're an Anglo-European Australian. I'm an Asian Australian. These terms are quite frequently used actually in today's Australia but more acknowledgement should be made.

Click to expand...

But once again, why? Isn't it enough to have to declare your actual nationality? If I'm an Australian citizen, then why shouldn't I say I'm Australian. For the purposes you are talking of, what possible purpose could it serve to have to declare your ancestral heritage?

In this day and age of multicultaralism and racial tolerance, it seems that anything that further segregates Australians into various racial backgrounds can only be a step backwards.

I'm not saying I have a problem with declaring myself as "Angl-Australian" as I'm fairly indifferent to my heritage, I just don't see the point.

Sorry if I'm being painful

Blessings,

Steve

I'm actually submitting a paper on this. If anyone else wants to join with me in submitting a report, it would look good to have more than one name in the report.

Basically, English is an Earthly languaged. If you're from a country that has internet access, then chances are you're capable of learning english. If not, what that should indicate is the individuals un-suitable characteristic of being Australian.

If they want to keep their native language as their only language, then Australia is not the place.

Australia is the place where by a person shares their characteristics to others, which is one of the fundamental values of being Australian.

It's really a Christian thing to do.

If a person was from say, napal where there is little access to education let alone internet, then of course there would be at least some consideration within our community to teach them english and help them pass the test, and from there Australian values would be promoted overseas.

I think it's shocking that a lot of muslim leaders have english difficulties. They really ought to be disgraced, for being in Australia and taking a leadership that is incapable of interacting with the greater community.

winglovesall said:

Steve, in response, you can tick either European or Asian or African or American - and for your case, you'd tick European

Because you're an Anglo-European Australian. I'm an Asian Australian. These terms are quite frequently used actually in today's Australia but more acknowledgement should be made.

Click to expand...

I have a nagging question.
I know of a friend that is 5th generation Chinese Australian. And he calls himself Australian but looks chinese and can't speak a word of Chinese.

A lot of my Australian Friends are only 3rd or 4th Generation Australian, all originating from either ireland or UK. They would call themselves Australians too.

So the question I need to ask is. Are they both allowed to tick the box, "Australian" instead of asian/african or caucasian..etc?

googled said:

I'm actually submitting a paper on this. If anyone else wants to join with me in submitting a report, it would look good to have more than one name in the report.

Basically, English is an Earthly languaged. If you're from a country that has internet access, then chances are you're capable of learning english. If not, what that should indicate is the individuals un-suitable characteristic of being Australian.

If they want to keep their native language as their only language, then Australia is not the place.

Australia is the place where by a person shares their characteristics to others, which is one of the fundamental values of being Australian.

It's really a Christian thing to do.

If a person was from say, napal where there is little access to education let alone internet, then of course there would be at least some consideration within our community to teach them english and help them pass the test, and from there Australian values would be promoted overseas.

I think it's shocking that a lot of muslim leaders have english difficulties. They really ought to be disgraced, for being in Australia and taking a leadership that is incapable of interacting with the greater community.

Click to expand...

Having spent a lot of time working with people who have little, not everyone has access to a computer. Generationally, not everyone is comfortable using a computer.

Consider those people who are older who have come to our country to be with the rest of their family. How do they fit with this proposal. As people get older learning a new language is harder, so is learning how to use a computer. Access to ESL classes are not that fantastic, and would probably be a very lengthy process for the more elderly.

Godssong said:

I think that every imigrant should have to speak the national language...I think it's important for everybody to embrace the language along with the culture of the country to whom he/she immigrates! It's arrogant and selfish to choose otherwise! Well, in my opinion, anyhow...

Click to expand...

I agree with you there godsong.

erin74 said:

Having spent a lot of time working with people who have little, not everyone has access to a computer. Generationally, not everyone is comfortable using a computer.

Consider those people who are older who have come to our country to be with the rest of their family. How do they fit with this proposal. As people get older learning a new language is harder, so is learning how to use a computer. Access to ESL classes are not that fantastic, and would probably be a very lengthy process for the more elderly.

Click to expand...

I think under the proposal, the elderley whom are quite incapable of learning english can be excluded. Of which might I add, because of this current rule, many immigrants are entering within the chinese community and are now receiving pensions. Which might seem a bit down at first, but at the same time the family that bought them in have contributed a lot to tax...

Therefore it serves the economy. I'm sure the politicians know this very well.

I know of a friend whom is very wealthy, and buys two grand orchids from China. He can't understand a word of english but pays people to translate, and I'm his orchid translator. Another is a lawyer..etc. He got in, because he served an interest by creating employment in Australia.

The example of the use of a Computer, I should state clearer next time, my apologies, should be the younger demographic.

The actual argument was, given the wide opportunity and they chose to reject english is a clear indication of their rejection of western society, which is an indicator for other problems that may lead. If on the other hand they have a deep interest in English, and try hard for it, this would be an indicator of their efforts and ease in adopting Australian Values.

Those that want to create a new subset community in a Country that tries to unify the communities, are clearly not acceptable.

The english test is thereby a test for this.

Unfortunately most of the young people of this forum believe the "English Test" is literally an "English Test".


Under the Citizenship test proposed by DIMA's documentation. All it merely asks is whether or not the test for Australian values should be in English.


It's not requesting any vocabularly or grammatically correct two thousand word essays. Even a yobbo of country NSW wouldn't be able to do that.

The English test as stated by DIMA is a Test to test whether the applicant has adopted Australian Values and whether this test should be in "English".

I think this is fair, because it's not requesting english skills, all it's requesting is the evaluation of values and to test the interest level by having the test in english.

But I can see where you're coming from. I've taught Chinese people how to use a mouse on a computer, so I understand the thoughts going through their minds.

no I dont think that they should have answer a language test but I do think that hey need to be able to communicate clearly in the community .

It's one thing to say it's desirable for everyone to be speaking english, and to provide some sort of incentive for it to happen. It's quite another to legislate about it.

Thats true erin, it is difficult to legislate which is why we have politicans to hedge things like these.

I have this nagging feeling within me, that seems to disagree with the whole "What have you learnt in Australia" and more "Where do you see Australia in 20yrs time".

The argument from politicans is, that the Title of Australian Citizenship should be differentiated between PR, by the differencing in values. I'm sure migrants that have no intention with learning english are as well of being PR than Citizens, unless they intend to access Centrelink payments or pensions... Other than that, I can't see why a person would become a Citizen... what to join the Australian military?

googled said:

Thats true erin, it is difficult to legislate which is why we have politicans to hedge things like these.

I have this nagging feeling within me, that seems to disagree with the whole "What have you learnt in Australia" and more "Where do you see Australia in 20yrs time".

The argument from politicans is, that the Title of Australian Citizenship should be differentiated between PR, by the differencing in values. I'm sure migrants that have no intention with learning english are as well of being PR than Citizens, unless they intend to access Centrelink payments or pensions... Other than that, I can't see why a person would become a Citizen... what to join the Australian military?

Click to expand...

First off, for many migrants, especially when they first settle here or if thry are elderly, I think accessing Centrelink and pensions would be a pretty big deal.

Secondly, maybe they would want to become Australian citizens for no other reason then pride. Maybe they think highly enough of Australia that they want to be able to proudly say that they are Australian.

Although I'm sure not everyone feels this way, I see a big difference between being able to say I am an Australian and saying I am Chinese, English, Canadian etc. who lives permanently in Australia.

Just my thoughts

Blessings,

Steve

SemperFidelis said:

First off, for many migrants, especially when they first settle here or if thry are elderly, I think accessing Centrelink and pensions would be a pretty big deal.

Secondly, maybe they would want to become Australian citizens for no other reason then pride. Maybe they think highly enough of Australia that they want to be able to proudly say that they are Australian.

Although I'm sure not everyone feels this way, I see a big difference between being able to say I am an Australian and saying I am Chinese, English, Canadian etc. who lives permanently in Australia.

Just my thoughts

Blessings,

Steve

Click to expand...

I totally agree with this.

I also think we have refugees who would gladly embrace our nation as their own, given what they have been through. It's just a shame our government can't see what a blessing this is with those who seek refugee status. That doesn't mean that they will necessarily be able to speak english automatically.

Also I wonder about those with literacy problems. We have people come to our country from nations where literacy rates aren't as high. I can't imagine learning a second language when you aren't literate in your first is an easy thing to do.

Trogdor the Burninator said:

For how long do people not “own” the land? 200 years? 2000 years? Can descendents of the Moors in Spain own land? Can Chinese people in Indonesia or Malaysia own land?
If we’re going to take this “original owners” thing to the logical extreme, then any Aboriginal tribe which encroached upon another should also lose their ownership.

I think we've been here long enough to all be in together now. We've acknowledged the past - it's time to move on.

Click to expand...

You mean Howard finally said sorry?