ANGRY MOB

According to Wikipedia:

You'd think that the Daily Mail, not being a racist newspaper or anything, would not take up a similar position. Yet they do.

Today's Daily Mail front page is another James Slack article on immigration and naturally it is another 'we're swamped and still they come' articles: 'British passports to be given to a record 220,000 migrants this year'. The article implies that the great rush for passports is caused by the government bringing in a tougher system for immigrants to earn citizenship, making obtaining a passport a 'six to eight' year job rather than the current, instantaneous, 'five years'.

That it currently takes five years comes as something of a surprise to me, I was convinced - from reading the Daily Mail - that immigrants only had to enter the country to be given a passport, a house, masses of benefits and a red-carpet champagne reception. Naturally James Slack is quick to point out that 'Critics said the rush shows just how lax the current system is' - I mean it only takes 5 years. He then moves onto something reminiscent of a BNP press release:

From the BNP constitution, it is:

So, the Daily Mail is happy to go along with the notion that the 'make-up' of Britain is being changed by a 'lax' immigration policy which is a sound Conservative / BNP / Daily Mail notion. However, the article is interesting in that it also destroys a few Daily Mail reader myths, for example:

Again, according to Richard Littlejohn and Co all immigrants are only here to reap the benefits of the UK benefit system, so how do they survive the five years until they are issued a passport and are actually entitled to any of these benefits?

Is it, shock horror, that they actually have a job and contribute to the economy - and they do so without the benefits that a UK citizen gets? Certainly, if a Daily Mail reader actually manages to read the article all the way through they should experience some strange thoughts in amongst their anger at more foreigners being granted citizenship. Thoughts that might encourage them to consider just why it is that immigrants arrive in the UK if they have to wait around 5 years to receive the benefits that the Daily Mail constantly implies that they are only here for.

This leads to the main point that I want to make: if an immigrant is granted citizenship do they become a British Citizen? The information on the BNP that I have copied from Wikipedia clearly states that the BNP do not consider non-whites to be ethnically British and that they are 'permanent guests'; the Daily Mail seems to suggest that they feel exactly the same way:

What this box is pointing out is entirely obvious: once an immigrant earns citizenship they are a UK citizen and entitled to the bullet points, the same as every other UK citizen. However, the box isn't concerned with pointing out what a UK citizen is entitled to; its job is to make us fully aware that immigrants should not be considered as UK citizens - in the same way that the BNP will never consider them to be British, even generations down the line.

Just briefly examine the language used here to create this message. The box is not pointing out what a UK citizen is entitled to, but rather what 'They can claim'. The word 'they' sets up the immigrant as an outsider, even though to be entitled to any of the benefits below this heading they must be a UK citizen and actually one of us.

As well as the obvious meaning that immigrants are still not the same as us - even if we share citizenship - there is a subtler undertone that 'They' are getting something we are not. If the Daily Mail used the heading: 'What UK citizens are entitled to' it would be perfectly clear that we all share an entitlement to these things, it is a positive thing. However, framing it with the word 'They can claim' implies that immigrants are again getting something extra, that the poor indigenous white-folk are being shoved to the bottom of the pile again.

Furthermore, the use of the word 'claim' also has a sinister implication, whilst the word 'entitlement' happily implies that we are all entitled to something, even if we do not choose or need to take it, the word 'claim' implies - negatively - that immigrants will choose or need to take these things. It is therefore heavily implied that all immigrants once they receive a passport will be a drain on the economy because they will 'claim' these things rather than simply being arbitrarily 'entitled' to them the same as all UK citizens.

Not content with this the Daily Mail also wants to hammer home the point that getting a passport is easy, as they make it clear that immigrants do not earn a passport but are instead 'handed a passport'. The article may talk about 'earning citizenship' but this box is an impact box, more likely to be read than the article, it is important that it carries the true message: passports are being given away to immigrants. If someone in the comments points out the cost and difficulty of getting a passport they are roundly voted down:

Furthermore, the implication here is perfectly clear: as UK citizens we have certain entitlements that we take for granted, they form the basic package of our valued freedoms and benefits. They are - at the risk of sounding overly patriotic - the very things that makes being British great: the NHS - free healthcare; child benefits and other aspects of the welfare state - the poor and needy are looked after by those more fortunate in society; the right to a house if you cannot afford one; the right to travel freely around the world; the right to support from British Embassies around the world and the fundamental right of your citizenship to be shared by your spouse and children.

These are good things, yet here they become soiled because once an immigrant becomes a citizen - once they are 'handed' a passport - 'they' will 'claim' these things and this is bad. You can almost hear the writer spitting in disgust as he created that blue box. The message is - as the BNP would heartily agree - even if they're given British citizenship they are not ethnically British, they don't deserve these things.

The only solution that I can see the Daily Mail grasping towards here is that immigrants should be given a second-class citizenship, they should not receive all of these entitlements. Why else would they put that box there and word it in the way that they have? Only one thing is abundantly clear: the BNP would agree with every carefully worded racist implication being made; in particular the implication that passport or not, UK citizenship or not, these people are not British and do not deserve to be entitled to the same things as us.

The Daily Mail readers seem to agree that immigrants will never be British: