Despite widespread criticisms of the first edition accompanying its launch, there seemed little media or political interest in the citizenship test. While hundreds of thousands have taken the test for permanent residency or citizenship, there was virtually no coverage other than the occasional quiz in local papers for readers to see if they could pass such a test and few mentions in Parliament that correct answers on the citizenship test were sometimes factually wrong. Yet, it was clear to anyone familiar with the test that it was increasingly unfit for purpose and required urgent reforms.

It can only be speculated that the reason these problems went unnoticed for so long was because few, if any, took seriously the voices of immigrants in the immigration system. Media coverage and political discourse was a conversation reserved for British citizens alone, with little interest in the experiences of immigrants. There was no effort at consulting with either citizens old or new nor with prospective applicants to become clearer on expectations and learn more about how well the test met its original aims and purposes. It was simply taken for granted – by political leaders from across the political spectrum who had not naturalized themselves – that passing this test was somehow evidence that an immigrant had sufficiently integrated. There was no need to ask those who had done it or researched whether these assumptions were valid. Immigrant voices carried little, if any, weight.

This situation was vivid for me as I heard constant calls for immigration reforms from policy- makers and their supporters who had no experience of immigration or naturalizing themselves. Shortly after I obtained my British citizenship in 2011, I resolved to change that and lobby for citizenship test reform. Through a local connection at BBC Newcastle, I was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's ‘You and Yours’ programme. Originally, their plan was to interview then Home Secretary Theresa May alongside me, but she declined. My interview was recorded on a Thursday. I claimed there was an urgent need for a new, third edition of the test. It needed to revise and refresh. Outdated and incorrect material needed correction. But I also took aim at the test's contents, arguing that the test should cover essential elements of British history and culture.