Naturalisation eligibility to be increased to ILR+2 years???

About time the HO woke-up to the eternal student, who sticks around so long that they become British Nationals.

Siggi wrote:About time the HO woke-up to the eternal student, who sticks around so long that they become British Nationals.

Whats wrong with that. They pay serious tuition and didn't take recourse to public funds. Seems like they should get it too.

Republique wrote:

Whats wrong with that. They pay serious tuition and didn't take recourse to public funds. Seems like they should get it too.

Whats wrong is that too many of people call themselves student's and an't really, in many cases it's just a cover story to enter the country and play the game and frankly a insult to geniune students.

I don't know any ten year degree courses!

Siggi wrote:Republique wrote:

Whats wrong with that. They pay serious tuition and didn't take recourse to public funds. Seems like they should get it too.

Whats wrong is that too many of people call themselves student's and an't really, in many cases it's just a cover story to enter the country and play the game and frankly a insult to geniune students.

I don't know any ten year degree courses!

Sure there are scammers but there are perpetual native students in every society so the HO should check the courses authenticity

Let's get this thread back on track and not waste time with the "eternal student" canard.

RobinLondon, you don't sound very convinced that the HO would NOT make this retrospective even for current ILR holders. An immigration lawyer on another forum states clearly that "Nobody will be grandfathered, and if you are not a citizen before the commencement date, then you fall subject to the new rules." I have asked for the basis of that statement (which I can't find in this masterpiece of turgid legalese), but the least one can say is that there are multiple opinions.

I expect the worst as that is what has always happened so far.

Yes, I agree with that statement from the other site, tobiashomer, but it's a matter of scope. If an ILR holder (old system) were to apply for naturalisation under the new rules, s/he would probably have to meet the new requirements with regards to volunteering or having a good criminal record. In that regard there wouldn't be any grandfathering. Perhaps I'm being too much of an optimist, but ILR is already a form of permanent residence that is, well, indefinite. I think it would be extremely difficult for the HO to take that status away and foist the inferior status of "probational citizen" upon anyone. They'd be setting themselves up for a court case that they would almost assuredly lose. I mean, talk about a breach of legitimate expectations.

So yeah, ILR holders would most likely have to follow the new naturalisation rules if they wait that long to apply. Or if they'd only have the first opportunity to do so then. There'd be no grandfathering in that sense. But the status as permanent residents already granted to ILR holders, I reckon that that's another issue entirely.

RobinLondon wrote:Yes, I agree with that statement from the other site, tobiashomer, but it's a matter of scope. If an ILR holder (old system) were to apply for naturalisation under the new rules, s/he would probably have to meet the new requirements with regards to volunteering or having a good criminal record. In that regard there wouldn't be any grandfathering. Perhaps I'm being too much of an optimist, but ILR is already a form of permanent residence that is, well, indefinite. I think it would be extremely difficult for the HO to take that status away and foist the inferior status of "probational citizen" upon anyone. They'd be setting themselves up for a court case that they would almost assuredly lose. I mean, talk about a breach of legitimate expectations.

So yeah, ILR holders would most likely have to follow the new naturalisation rules if they wait that long to apply. Or if they'd only have the first opportunity to do so then. There'd be no grandfathering in that sense. But the status as permanent residents already granted to ILR holders, I reckon that that's another issue entirely.

Robin, I think Liam Byrne has got that covered.The draft states that the qualifying period would apply to individuals with probationary citizenship OR permanent permission (?ILR)...

Because people don’t trust the HO they always expect the worse
Its so clear the end of the path it will be ether gaining citizenship or ILR
So I can’t imagine in the worst dream that a person holding ILR will go to a proportionally period. its impossible
But in the green paper it says people at the end of the path with ILR can switch to a citizenship later
I think that’s when the new rules might apply to them by another way (how and when they can apply....no more )

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... iew=Binary

pls open the link and see page 20 figure 1 (it says
• Indefinite leave to remain in the UK
• Can switch to
Citizenship at a later
date

ah but there's the rub: "switch to citizenship" just by asking for it... or by earning it? it is too beautiful to think that current ILR holders would be allowed just to switch without paying a penalty. I would bet it will end up being ILR + 1 year for those with qualifying "activities", and ILR + 3 for the rest. the hope is that some disgusted ILR holders will choose the "leave the UK" route and provide useful stats for the HO.

am I too cynical?

you are not but HO is
we can only hope that it will not be so easy to arrange the whole thing with volunteering etc
I would not be surprised if they abandon the idea as they did recently when wanted to force yobs to face their victims in the hospitals
of course volunteering organisations will be happy to get extra stuff but again I don`t beleive that you can arrange this in a way that you do not radicule HO and the whole country as people will be volunteering but only for the sake of BC and not because they would like to contribute to the society. There is no such thing as Margareth Tatcher once said.
I can only imagine headlines in the world`s media

tobiashomer wrote:. I would bet it will end up being ILR + 1 year for those with qualifying "activities", and ILR + 3 for the rest.

I still like to think its clear and obvious
If there was any thing to do with the term “citizenshipâ€

tobiashomer wrote:ah but there's the rub: "switch to citizenship" just by asking for it... or by earning it? it is too beautiful to think that current ILR holders would be allowed just to switch without paying a penalty. I would bet it will end up being ILR + 1 year for those with qualifying "activities", and ILR + 3 for the rest. the hope is that some disgusted ILR holders will choose the "leave the UK" route and provide useful stats for the HO.

am I too cynical?

No the green paper doesn't require more time once you get ILR to switch to citizenship. The only barrier would be if for some reason you wouldn't have qualified for citizenship right off the bat such as committing crimes.

Out of interest I need to know what will happen to children of immigrants born in uk..currently children who born in UK get passport if thier parents have PR..now as they are planning to replace it with probationary citizenship...I suspect they won't be eligible any more?

Anyway the website has updated in regards to citizenship and the green paper
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/
Anticipated date to go into effect is late 2009 so there is time for anyone coming to the age of citizenship eligibility this year and next year.

Anyone considered how those working long hours and 6-day weeks, or are caring for young children, will be able to commit to community or charity work??

Casa wrote:Anyone considered how those working long hours and 6-day weeks, or are caring for young children, will be able to commit to community or charity work??

There was a recent thread about the new (as yet, very unclear) volunteer requirements:

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=28667

I think a lot of us are wondering what will count as community service, and there are lots of 'what if's?' What if someone prefers to donate money to charity, instead of doing charity work? What if all those charities are flooded with would-be British citizens, who just want to fulfil the requirement, and the charities turn them away? What if someone is very active in their immigrant community, but as a result, they don't have much contact with locals?! The list of contingencies is mind-boggling.

The other thing to say about this topic, is that maybe the whole idea is not really workable .

In reality, the period to qualify will either be extended to eight years or reduced to six years and the idea of comunity service will be forgotten.

No one knows what will happen once the Green paper goe's before parliment for it's final reading.

So before that happens, it's all speculation and people's own unqualified interpretation, including mine.

Wait and see after the summer recess.!

Siggi, you are too modest. I think what you say is about the best that can be said at this point. But I too think that the community service thing will beg so many questions that it will not work out; either they will just make it 8 years unless, maybe, one is an award-winning do-gooder, or 6 years provided your British character referees are willing to say that you are good members of the community. but having hundreds of thousands of would-be citizens running around looking for ways to volunteer just to fulfill this mickeymouse requirement should be the nightmare of any serious charity. knowing they will all disappear the day they get naturalised! and there will be dishonest citizens willing to swear that Joe Immigrant has done lots of great things--for a shilling or two. and once a case of such corruption hits the tabloids the whole scheme will fall into terminal disrepute.

at the end of the day I think it will be clear that all that can be done is to make sure applicants have paid their way (and taxes) and are without a criminal record, and then make the time whatever they want, 6 or 7 or 8.

I thnk, in theory, if the government REALLY want to i) help the charities, and/or ii) immerse future citizens into the "fabric" of British life as it is understood by the Ministers - and if they really put their mind to it, then technically it can be done. Charities and other organisations in need of volunteers can be polled, consulted and agreed with on certain terms and conditions of how they would use the forecasted quick-turnover volunteer force that might be coming their way. Risks and benefits of high attrition rate and workforce unfamiliar with (and not much caring for) the nature or form of the charity / business, can be weighed and incorporated into a structured approach. Perhaps entire authorised "bodyshops" might be set up to deal with this as pure temp labour. These charities, organisations or temp agencies could then be licensed to issue certificates that Joe Immigrant has fulfilled his committment towards a shortened path to citizenship, which would then be enclosed with a 6-year qualifying period applications.

Will they go to those lengths and if yes, will they be able to not make a mess out of it? Willl they be trusted by the legislators to undertake such an aproach? Remains to be seen...

Cosmopol, that is a chilling prospect. As no-one except prospective candidates for naturalisation would be enrolled in such programmes, this would be a humiliating shambles for the participants and would achieve the opposite of integration. the involvement of most British subjects, or indeed citizens of most countries, in the life of their country comes in myriad guises and if the "earned" element of citizenship is meant to involve the new arrivals in British life, a much more subtle and inclusive approach needs to be used. which I think probably means it is unworkable unless it is to alienate the participants rather than assimilate them.

tobiashomer wrote:Cosmopol, that is a chilling prospect. As no-one except prospective candidates for naturalisation would be enrolled in such programmes, this would be a humiliating shambles for the participants and would achieve the opposite of integration. the involvement of most British subjects, or indeed citizens of most countries, in the life of their country comes in myriad guises and if the "earned" element of citizenship is meant to involve the new arrivals in British life, a much more subtle and inclusive approach needs to be used. which I think probably means it is unworkable unless it is to alienate the participants rather than assimilate them.

Well, it is a complex issue, and I certainly wasn't arguing above for or against the changes; just addressing the technical aspects. As for community and charity work - it is best when it is voluntary and genuine, I might know it better than anyone, as otherwise a cynicism and life-long antipathy to good causes may ensue and could achieve an almost the oppposite effect.

However, the government seems bent on making the citizenship less "automatic" and more "earned", and so we have to account for that approach, however imperfect and misguided it may be.

i think its a good idea, ppl who want to be BC should help in the community. ppl who passed the life in the UK test - still cant understand or speak in english and hence cant communicate. and also if you have x amount of kids you should pay extra - cos once you gain citizenship you apply for child benefit, working/child tax credits, pension credits its not fair, i pay sooooooo much tax to pay for other ppl who shouldnt get it cos they have not put anything in the "pot".

the british benefit system is a JOKE!! btw i aint being dearly beloved im asian myself. infact the whole immigrations system is a joke!

oh the white paper is coming out in NOVEMBER 2008!

The following three stages in the journey to citizenship will be introduced, to either speed up or slow down the journey depending on behaviour:


Temporary residence
Probationary citizenship
British citizenship or permanent residence


The four main themes underpinning migrants' progress through the system are:


English language requirements
Minimum time periods for each stage of the journey (for example: at least one year must be spent as a probationary citizen before a person can apply to become a British Citizen)
Obeying the law
Active participation in the community

mona-de-bois wrote:So they've made it retrospective again.

Guys, could you kindly explain this part:
has had the permanent permission for the whole of the qualifying period
of the document http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... iew=Binary
page 15.

Also please have a look at the definition of 'qualifying period' on page 18. It's 8 years (or 6 years if you're a volunteer).

Does it mean that if you've got ILR and don't want to switch to "Probational Sitizenship" you will have you wait eigth additional years (or six) after you obtained your ILR before you are eligible for naturalization?

Yeh, guys, haven't you noticed this too? Having read it twice, I got the same impression as mona-de-bois's. Can anybody give a different explanation on this? Or we should just hope there is some sort of transitional provision for exisiting ILR holders?

Below is my written response sent to the HO re the bill (to both email addresses: homeaffcom@parliament.uk; and immigrationsimplification@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk).

Written Evidence:
Comments on draft immigration and citizenship bill

Dear Sirs,

I think the draft bill is faulty because it makes no reference to people who already have ILR and will be qualified for applying for citizenship soon (for example in one year's time). I myself will have met the current requirements for applying for citizenship by end of May 2009. What happens if the bill comes into effect before then and the rules change?

The bill should make it clear that it does not apply to people who will qualify for citizenship application in three years' time. There is a reason for the provision of three years. This is because it currently takes 6 years to qualify for citizenship application (ie 5 year for ILR and 1 more year after ILR). For people who have already on the path to settlement for 3 years, the law should not change "half-way"!

Recent court ruling on the immigration rule change on HSMP case (17 July 2008 Highly Skilled Migrant Programme Forum Judicial Review) against the Government means that the change of immigration rules must not have retrospective effects. Existing ILR holders have a reasonable expectation that they should be able to apply for citizenship one year after they have received their ILR. These people should not be negatively affected by the changes introduced in this bill! They have demonstrated that they have earned their ILR!

Especially, mind you, the negative impact of any immigration rule change that has retrospective effects can cause significant social uneasy and hardship. In one instance, this led to the above-mentioned Judicial Review in which the Government was criticised. Two websites, www.vbsi.org.uk (Voice of Britain's Skilled Immigrants) and HSMP Forum were setup specifically to fight against such changes. Therefore, a serious, detailed and extensive Impact Assessment should be carried out for the finalisation of the current draft bill so as to avoid repeating past mistakes.

I am looking forward to your reply.
Thank you!

>>>>>>> Is www.vbsi.org.uk still online?>>>>>