5 years increased to 10-20 years for Naturalisation?

Hello,

Do you think the Government in near future may increase 5 years to 10 years or 20 years of lawful residence in order to qualify for the naturalisation?

my friend said that there are rumours of this.

I guess we have to wait and find out. Anything else would be sheer speculation.

Polishing the forum's 'crystal ball'.

Rumour - a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth.

If there is a change, I doubt it would extend the possibility of citizenship beyond 10 years mostly due to the somewhat high regards that the UK has for various Human Rights treaties on the subject (which reccommend atleast the possibility after ten years). But no one can predict what will actually happen, not even the UK government itself.

Berry777 wrote:Do you think the Government in near future may increase 5 years to 10 years or 20 years of lawful residence in order to qualify for the naturalisation?

Highly unlikely. Changing this would require primary legislation (Act of Parliament), which the government has so far avoided. Besides, with Brexit on the cards, that alone will soak up all parliamentary time, never mind the rest of government business.

What the government can do (and has done in the past) is change the Immigration Rules to make the period for earning ILR longer. So, perhaps 10 years of T2 before ILR and long residence ILR being after 15 or 20 years rather than 10. But this won't affect people already in the UK on a journey either under the PBS or spouse route, under the doctrine of legitimate expectations.

Note that Long Residence ILR does not, to the best of my knowledge, come under legitimate expectations, though I could be wrong on this specific point.

So, if you are in the UK and on the PBS or spouse route, you do not have much to fear about.

I would respectfully disagree with Outflak1 in that I do not believe that human rights law interacts with grant of citizenship/naturalisation at all. It can impact ILR, but not naturalisation itself.

secret.simon wrote:I would respectfully disagree with Outflak1 in that I do not believe that human rights law interacts with grant of citizenship/naturalisation at all.

You're not actually disagreeing with me. Human rights laws do not interact with the grant of citizenship/naturalization at all. I was merely saying that the UK does try to keep some of these things in mind when forming its rules on the subject. The UK is a signatory to the non-binding Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. This has affected some registration (3.2 and 3.5 in particular) implementation. And the UK does try to offer a realistic possibility of attaining citizenship within ten years for many groups of immigrants, I believe because of that convention. I don't think they would stray too far away from that because of their support for these internation treaties, but that is only my gut feeling telling me that. They certainly can, as a sovereign nation, do anything they like with their conferral of citizenship.

secret.simon wrote:What the government can do (and has done in the past) is change the Immigration Rules to make the period for earning ILR longer. So, perhaps 10 years of T2 before ILR and long residence ILR being after 15 or 20 years rather than 10. But this won't affect people already in the UK on a journey either under the PBS or spouse route, under the doctrine of legitimate expectations.

Note that Long Residence ILR does not, to the best of my knowledge, come under legitimate expectations, though I could be wrong on this specific point.

So, if you are in the UK and on the PBS or spouse route, you do not have much to fear about.

After the stunt that the UK government pulled with increasing the permanent residency qualifying period from 4 to 5 years with HSMPs and Work Permit holders, the UK learned its lesson well. They now clearly, and very carefully, state that they can change the rules at any time as they see fit, including retroactive changes to any qualifying aspect of any visa. They won't be digging themselves into that legal hole again. It's frankly a bit of a miracle that they were actually successful in dishonorably backing out of their written word with regards to the Work Permit holders, and it was still a costly legal fight for them that could have gone either way.

secret.simon wrote:It (human rights) can impact ILR, ...

The UK could scrap ILR tomorrow and there is not one Human Rights anything that could be invoked in response. Permanent residence is a surprisingly young concept and not that common. Only 60-70 countries in the world offer anything like it, each with their own particular variation, meaning the different versions are not necessarily even all that similar to each other. The concept is not internationally defined and is not, as far as I'm aware, part of any international treaty or convention of any kind (unless you count the EU as 'international'). If there is going to be a change to residency requirements, I agree with you, this probably where it is going to be.

But that is a completely unknown *if* right now, barely more than rampant speculation.

Speak thee softly, lest you provoke anxiety. You can speak freely, so long as you upset nobody.

I broadly concur with your reasoning, Outflak1. As I understand it, there are elements of human rights law that interact with the right to reside on a more permanent basis once one has stayed in a country for a period of time. Again, the scope and limitations of that interaction are not entirely clear. And it is, as you mentioned, an entirely domestic status. ILR does not have any status outside the UK, for instance.

If...

secret.simon wrote:
Note that Long Residence ILR does not, to the best of my knowledge, come under legitimate expectations, though I could be wrong on this specific point.

Could you please clarify what you mean by the legitimate expectations and why does Long Residence falls under this category in your view?

Legitimate Expectations

The application of this doctrine to the Immigration Rules was confirmed by the HSMP judgment of 6 April 2009. Unfortunately I can not seem to find a link to the judgment, but broadly, as I understand it, it states that if the person has started an immigration journey on a specific immigration pathway (say, T2G or spouse of a British citizen, for example), s/he would have legitimate expectations that the rules of that pathway would not change while s/he is on that pathway. So, any change should not affect people already on a specific pathway.

If you were to change pathways (you went from T2G to being a spouse of a British citizen, for example), you would be aware that you are changing pathways, be aware of the difference in the rules between the two and hence the doctrine of legitimate expectations would not apply.

Long Residence is not a pathway, it is more an outgrowth of human rights law in the immigration rules garden. If there were changes in the field of human rights law, as the current government has suggested, the Long Residence rule may be liable to change.

Nota Bene: I am not a lawyer, let alone an immigration lawyer. This is my understanding of the law. If I am substantively wrong, I am sure I will be corrected in short order by learned members.

secret.simon wrote:Legitimate Expectations

The application of this doctrine to the Immigration Rules was confirmed by the HSMP judgment of 6 April 2009. Unfortunately I can not seem to find a link to the judgment, but broadly, as I understand it, it states that if the person has started an immigration journey on a specific immigration pathway (say, T2G or spouse of a British citizen, for example), s/he would have legitimate expectations that the rules of that pathway would not change while s/he is on that pathway. So, any change should not affect people already on a specific pathway.

If you were to change pathways (you went from T2G to being a spouse of a British citizen, for example), you would be aware that you are changing pathways, be aware of the difference in the rules between the two and hence the doctrine of legitimate expectations would not apply.

Long Residence is not a pathway, it is more an outgrowth of human rights law in the immigration rules garden. If there were changes in the field of human rights law, as the current government has suggested, the Long Residence rule may be liable to change.

Nota Bene: I am not a lawyer, let alone an immigration lawyer. This is my understanding of the law. If I am substantively wrong, I am sure I will be corrected in short order by learned members.

Thank you Secret Simon. I was consulting Wikipedia too and I got the overall idea - but your explanation enhanced my understanding further. I have myself obtained ILR through the 10 years residence route and I can now make correlations as to why this route is not subject to the doctrine of legitimate expectations. Essentially, if, for example, I was a student in the UK and then worked for a few years on PSW (now abolished) and then failed to get another visa which would help me fulfill 10 years to qualify for ILR, then that's tough luck - but legally that is not an expectation, because residing in a student visa or PSW does not automatically make one eligible for ILR application. There is only one such possibility, namely combining several student visa and PSW (or other) to fulfill the 10 years.

Initially, I misunderstood you (quite fundamentally) that a granted ILR can be revoked if it us earned through Long Residence, which is not what you stated.

Suma sumarum, I learned a new aspect of immigration rules. Thanks

peckhampelican wrote:Essentially, if, for example, I was a student in the UK and then worked for a few years on PSW (now abolished) and then failed to get another visa which would help me fulfill 10 years to qualify for ILR, then that's tough luck - but legally that is not an expectation, because residing in a student visa or PSW does not automatically make one eligible for ILR application. There is only one such possibility, namely combining several student visa and PSW (or other) to fulfill the 10 years.

You explained it much better than me.

peckhampelican wrote:Initially, I misunderstood you (quite fundamentally) that a granted ILR can be revoked if it us earned through Long Residence, which is not what you stated.

Oh absolutely not. An ILR through Long Residence is not a lesser ILR. All ILRs have the same status, the same rights and the rules once they have been obtained.

peckhampelican wrote:I learned a new aspect of immigration rules. Thanks

Learning something new everyday is one of the joys of living. That is also why I haunt these forums, well after my journey is over.

secret.simon wrote:Legitimate Expectations

The application of this doctrine to the Immigration Rules was confirmed by the HSMP judgment of 6 April 2009. Unfortunately I can not seem to find a link to the judgment,

.........

Maybe the link below can assist

HSMP Judicial Reivew : Policy Document