Migrants and their children, even if born in the UK, do not automatically qualify for nationality. They are required to have spent five years in the UK, and pass the citizenship test. This also generally means surrendering your previous nationality (as very few nations have dual nationality with the UK).

The moment people do this, they're making a positive declaration of their decision to become British and prove at least theoretically that they are British citizens.

The only exception to this are Asylum applicants, which follows a different process (and is less than 10% of the migration figure)

For me, at that point you are British. The moment you become a Citizen of the United Kingdom. English, I don't really know how anyone really can define that, given that even among white Brits who've got long family history in England - you have other groups that have long become immersed into English. My family has a strong Romany association, English, some Cornish, Irish, a bit of Jewish, Welsh some French among the certainty of some older Saxon-Norman hybrid.

Basically, my relatives, going back, were poor, and as a result not really that fussy. Maybe that's what English actually is, a box you tick like other, when you could probably identify with several different groups.

In truth the same applies to the Welsh and Scotish, their 'national identity' has no real ethnic, long term geographical or biological basis.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

As I have said in another post, how others perceive you is as important as anything else. For some, usually older people, a brown face will never be British but that will change over passage of time. What a passport says you are is not really that significant. The norm of "Britishness" is set by the majority and that majority will change in makeup steadily over time.
Some are already more likely to accept a person of Caribbean decent, who's parents might have come here in the 50's, as British than a Polish person who arrived here 5 years ago. For some it is more about cultural similarity or even genetic similarity.

So Britishness is really a perceptual thing which is defined by the majority view. This might not stand up to scrutiny in scientific or historical terms but it is the yardstick that really counts.

All valid points.

I would suggest that opinion is important even if it is uninformed and or prejudices. It is, after all, the basis of our democracy.
That is a long way from saying that it is intellectual or "right". In any case, who is to say what is moral or correct? That is as much about consensus as anything else. We hope that wisdom prevails but wisdom of course has so many grey areas. One mans wise is another man's foolish and that is why we have democracy. The less well educated have and voice and those who are better educated aren't always as clever as they think they are. The alternative is to be told how to think by a self appointed elite.I think we have moved to far in that direction already.

That moves nicely onto another issue. Getting people to be honest about their opinions. Many, if questioned, will say something completely different to what they actually think. There is a pressure to conform and rarely has there been a stronger one that over issues related to immigration .
Let's not forget that we are all victims of propaganda from birth and that such an influence can often be dressed up as intellectualism.

Some people have a fixed and clear idea of what being British is. Some have a broader more flexible view. For others it is what someone else tells them it is.

They do, and only by challenging those ideas, can we establish a greater understanding of what British is. If we fail to view our own ideas and options critically, we cannot progress to a greater understanding. The acceptance of any idea as somehow more than just an idea, requires evidence. Our personal opinions are no different - they are just ideas we hold, unless we test their null hypothesis.

As such, I would hold, that to first determine what is British, you must first define what you mean by British, and then it can be assessed. We should also try to establish any universal traits, to form a kind of baseline (i.e what are requirements of all British people).

Interestingly of course, being British is also defined by people who aren't British, through their discourses on being British - especially in a mass media age. This also can critically inform our view of Britishness, as whilst they are bias, their bias (as is our own) they present a different critical construct of ideas, that can present a critique of our own bias.

Otherwise its just what we have faith in.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I don't think Britishness is anymore than an idea.
Defining it analytically is rather beside the point. One could apply numerous criteria and arrive at a different definition, none of which would be satisfactory.
For me it can only remain a general consensus or a personal feeling and never quite within reach.

A bit of a crap conclusion I know.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 May 2016 12.32pm)

I think the most central importance, is that we all engage in discourse about what it means to be British - Its something that exists in a continual flux of being made and remade by social interactions on the subject.

In effect its something both within us and external, that exists in almost a 'quantum state' of uncertainty.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]