But I guess 'a fair go' is an Australian value, not a British one, so I should probably jettison the expectation that life is fair if I want to stay in the UK.
From the Times Online: Anti-war migrants could damage citizenship hopes
There would also be a new two-stage test before a migrant is awarded a passport. The existing test in which a person must know English and the practicalities of life in Britain would be bolstered by an examination on UK history, its constitution and government.
Previously, they didn't ask migrants to know history or politics that a British person wouldn't know, because it wasn't fair. So why is it ok now? I don't know a single UK citizen that passed the 'Life in the UK' test, and that's only the existing test.
But fair
It has been suggested that migrants who took part in anti-war demonstrations could jeopardise their chances of qualifying for citizenship....
When it was pointed out that demonstrating was not illegal, Mr Woolas suggested that an applicant could also lose points not just for breaking the law but for engaging in certain activities that were legal.
He was asked: "Are you effectively saying to people who want to have a British passport, 'You can have one, and when you've got one you can demonstrate as much as you like, but until then don't'?"
Mr Woolas replied: "In essence, yes. In essence, we are saying that the test that applies to the citizen should be broader than the test that applies to the person who wants to be a citizen. I think that's a fair point of view, to say that if you want to come to our country and settle, you should show that adherence.
How is that fair? Did they change the meaning of 'fair' when I wasn't looking?
In the same article, the Lib Dems are quoted as saying:
"With the proposal that people could be barred for unpatriotic behaviour, it looks as if the Government wants to play the thought police. But there should be no question of barring people because they criticise government policy. Democratic values must come first."
The most depressing thing is that otherwise there's very little real opposition to it. And there's no recognition of the fact that legal non-EU immigrants are being punished because the government can't stop legal immigrants from the EU (who can claim benefits and might end up costing the country money, unlike non-EU immigrants who bring net wealth to the country), and can't reach illegal immigrants.
The Wall Street Journal did at least present a commonsense point about it all:
Some industries have complained about the increased restrictions. Both Britain's catering industry and its powerful banking sector have said that tightened immigration rules have made it harder for them to attract global talent and fill jobs that can't be filled through local hires.The points-based system was also criticized this weekend in a report by a committee of U.K. lawmakers, who said it gives undue priority to factors such as qualifications and ignores ability or experience.