2004 December 14 Tuesday
Officer Denied British Citizenship Because Army Service Took Him Abroad

Patriotism counts for so little these days.

Captain Warwick Strong, 29, whose father and grandfather were both colonels in the Army and held British citizenship, served with the Royal Artillery for four years. He was born in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, where his parents were living at the time, and came to Britain on an ancestral visa, which has been renewed until October 2006.

But despite being praised for his military record, he has been told by the Home Office that he does not qualify for citizenship partly because of his absence from the country as a result of being posted abroad.

Qualification for a passport demands that the applicant must not be out of the country for more than 90 days the year before applying.

Am I wrong to think that the British government of, say, 50 years ago never would have made such a pathetic decision? That the willingness to dedicate oneself to military service in the British Army was held in such high esteem that a 3rd (or greater?) generation British officer would never be treated in such a fashion?

Strong's grandfather was in the British Army for 32 years. His father and mother are British citizens. This guy obviously can't go back to his birthplace Zimbabwe now since whites are basically not welcome there as citizens any longer. He was in Germany, Kosovo, and Iraq in the British Army and hence failed the residency requirement. So if he had just stayed in Britain and not served in the British Army he'd probably qualify for citizenship. That's messed up. That is seriously messed up. The British government ought to be ashamed of itself.

Welfare state governments effectively want to own their citizens. But the incentives and disincentives they place before their citizens and prospective citizens make it clear that those governments do not want national loyalty from their citizens. They want their charges to be dependent and feel dependent and not to feel and act responsibly (else, why systematically reward irresponsibility?). How else to explain something like the story above and the behavior of welfare states in general?

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2004 December 14 02:49 AM  Immigration Policy

Kenelm Digby. said at December 14, 2004 4:55 AM:

My God!,
This man is clearly of ENGLISH BLOOD!

What a sad, sorry state of degradation the English political class has reached when the blood of glorious ancestors, from the builders of Stonehenge, to the warriors at Agincourt counts for absolutely nothing, while the dusky tribesman who knows nothing of England, (and can't find it on a map), but can utter the word "asylum" (and is cunning to know of the lavish cash benefits and welfare that "England" provides) is given priority.
Does such a perverted, evil nation actually deserve to exist?

seelow heights said at December 14, 2004 7:13 AM:

The ruling elites of Britain and the US seem to be the worst on the planet. Even the perpetually horse-whipped Germans show more inclination toward self-preservation. How to explain the spectacle of anti-national national leadership? If Churchill were alive today to see what has become of the UK he might reconsider his decision to reject Adolf's 1940 peace feelers.

noone said at December 14, 2004 9:18 AM:

And 6 months after toppling the Taliban,the Brit government was granting political asylum to members of the Taliban on the grounds that they faced prosecution by the new Afghan government.Like giving asylum to the SS because of Nuremberg.This only stopped when it was revealed they were getting housing and support while several Falklands vets were homeless.

The isanity of the western elites becomes more clear everyday.

John S Bolton said at December 14, 2004 3:25 PM:

They are not insane; they want to establish dictatorship in a country where it has been difficult to accomplish. This requires punishing the good, and rewarding resident enemies until civil war comes, and the smallest-souled of bureaucrats and scholars mounts up in undeserved significance, crying now we are part of a state with real power over its citizens. This has happened in so many countries, now the focus of all the malice in the world is upon those few who have resisted the capitulation to tyranny for the longest time.

Mark said at December 14, 2004 3:28 PM:

Why would you want to risk your life for a country which wants to remove itís history and ruin itís future?

Kurt said at December 14, 2004 9:17 PM:

My only response to something like this is that countries like the UK are contemptable and do not deserve to exist. When the men of accomplishment prostrate themselves to men not of accomplishment (the "politically correct attitudes of the European and American liberal elites), it is clear that both groups of such men are not worthy of existance.

On the other hand, Ralph Peters says in his most recent book, "Beyond Baghdad", that to assume that the Europeans will accept such self effacement indefinitely is to make the same mistake that the Japanese made over 60 years ago when they bombed Pearl Harbor. One can hope that the Europeans will rediscover such backbone and will start to re-create a culture that is conducive and respectful of human accomplishment.

John S Bolton said at December 14, 2004 9:36 PM:

It is actually the government schools and unnecessary officialdom of such countries which ought not to exist. One needn't blame the general public; these disloyalties are imposed on them by power-seeking officials who know how to get the dictatorships of their dreams. Certainly a minority are complicit; but you don't know how to get out of the catch-22 such officials set up, by deliberately importing or establishing problems which only dictatorship can get rid of, in order to get the despotism established.

Kurt said at December 15, 2004 2:31 PM:


What you say is correct. However, why is it that the general public continues to puts up with the unnecessary officialdom when it is clearly out of control and interfering with creative human endevours? In theory, western socieites are democracies where people should be able to "vote the bums out" and set up a new system, more respecting of private human accomplishment and individual liberties. The fact that most people are not willing to do this and prefer the status quo suggests that either such people don't give a S*&t or that they actually have a vested interest in the status quo.

The problem of getting rid of a bad system without killing the populace is like trying to get rid of a cancer or a parasite without killing the patient. What is the most effective mannor for doing such a thing?

These are questions that I have no answer for (although I wish I had).

kurt said at December 15, 2004 2:58 PM:

In reference to my previous post, this is the reason why I think that republics last only around 200 years or so. Because after 200 years or so, the majority of the electorate figure out the trick of voting themselve largress from the public treasury. Then is all downhill from that point on.

Freedom and indivdual accountability are flip sides to the same coin. In order to have a free society, you MUST have a populace composed of independent, self-sufficient individuals. In other words, you must have a society where dependency is relatively rare. This is the libertarian reason why I am a fervent supporter of the scientific conquest of aging and death (i.e. SENS). A society of "immortals" will be a society relatively free of dependency and, therefor, can be a much more "libertarian" society. The fact that many other libertarian and other "pro-freedom" types fail to support or promote the scientific conquest of aging has always been a complete mystery to me. Its almost as though many people actually believe that dependency is a positive social value. I consider this to be twisted and perverse at best.

In any case, you cannot have a free society if you have a populace composed of people who are either unwilling or unable to assume responsibility for themselves. You have to have some other kind of system. The key, in such a case, is to create a system that will take care and assume responsibility for such people which, at the same time, allows maximum freedom and latitude for the people who ARE willing to be responsible for themselves and want to pursue the "great dreams". Admittedly, creating such a system is tricky at best, but to not try to create such a system is contemptable at best. I feel that societies that fail to even ponder these issues should either be left alone (if they are willing to be left alone in peace) or to be irradicated.

Perhaps the differences between "winners" and "losers" are rooted in genetics. Perhaps character traits such as honesty, work-ethic, and willingness to assume responibility for ones own actions are based on gene expression and neurochemistry. If this is the case, it suggests that a freer society can be achieved through biotechnological means and that criminal and other forms of anti-social behavior can be effectively treated through "therapy" Greg Bear wrote a novel based on this possibility about 15 years ago (called "Queen of Angels"). If this is indeed the case, is there any rational argument for NOT trying to improve society by such a method? I hardly think so.

Organized religion is worthless for dealing with these issues because of its obsession with "sin" being defined as something other than anti-social behavior as well as its twisted obsession with sexuality. Such religion cannot provide answers. It can only muddy the waters further. For this reason, it is also contemptible at best, particularly the religions that originated in the middle-east.

The question of social issues and religion brings up the most basic question of all: people such as us are not allowed certain kinds of freedom because other people cannot handle it. If we are to give up freedom in order to "accomodate" those who "cannot handle it", should we not have some say in what is to be done about those other people? After all, the fact that we are giving up freedom to "accomodate" the "others" suggests that the "others" are clearly living at our sufferance. Does anyone not see this as an intolorable situation?

John S Bolton said at December 15, 2004 6:04 PM:

It looks bad if the societies with the most freedom have governments which continually use extreme provocation on the citizenry, exactly as if officials were salivating over the possiblity that they might set off civil war. West European governments taunt and bait their citizens to the far degree of provocation; they shut down or arrest the leaders of patriotic parties, censor political speech, and wave in dangerous enemies, all as if to prove that peaceful resolution of differences is impossible. A new wave of wars will sweep these countries, whose officials are openly lusting for civil war.

John S Bolton said at December 15, 2004 6:25 PM:

The bad events occur because of the existence of government schools; if these events were not preventable, it wouldn't bother us that much. If evil occurences which are preventable, keep happening, this means that culture does not mobilize sufficiently to the challenge before it. Believing in freedom from aggression, one can see that the government intervention in cultural matters, which is to say, its schools, is where the forcing of civilization into irrational channels is accomplished. These schools are also central to the parasitization of one population on a more productive one. Being based on aggression against the net taxpayer, they must follow out their foundational principles to their limits. Thus culture turns into propaganda for freedom ~for~ aggression.

Keos said at January 3, 2005 12:53 PM:

just one thing:
The story doesn't ring true, or we're not considering all the facts.
I'm british, have lived in france for 14 years.
My sister gave birth in france, the child in intitled to british citizenship yet has never set foot on british soil.
If either of his parents were english citizens he automatically obtains citizenship unless the parents did not declare the birth and even then a simple birth cetificate would be proof enough.
If you visit the british consulate web page you will see that living abroad is not suitable for refusing a passport.

Did he, however, join another country's army? does he have more than one citizenship already?
There must be a true reason for this refusal...

Keos said at January 4, 2005 1:41 AM:

Just checked it out:
In fact he did not state that he had been posted abroad on the forms, since army barracks are considered british soil anyway.
He has re-applied correcty his previous form and he has been granted citizenship... and both his parents were not british.

So get the facts right before you start hurtling insults at the only country who had the courage to openly back America

Jamie said at December 17, 2008 10:55 AM:

I believe Australia openly backed America too. So i believe it is you who should get your facts right.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©