ILR vs BC

[busubi]

What are the main differences between ILR and being a British Citizen apart from the fact about leaving the country for long periods of time?

[JAJ]

What are the main differences between ILR and being a British Citizen apart from the fact about leaving the country for long periods of time?

- exempt from deportation
- British citizenship for overseas born children (restricted if you're British by descent)
- Civil Service employment
- British passport and consular protection
- right to vote and hold public office (unless you're already a Commonwealth/Irish citizen)
- Treaty Rights in other EU/EEA states plus Switzerland
- shorter waiting period for naturalisation for non-British spouse

[Marco 72]

There is also an additional duty: as a UK citizen you can be called for jury service.

[Christophe]

There is also an additional duty: as a UK citizen you can be called for jury service.

All those entitled to vote in the UK can be called for jury service - so Commonwealth and Irish citizens living in the UK and on the electoral roll (as they ought to be) can be called.

[Marco 72]

An additional right would be being able to stand for public office (this is also shared with Commonwealth citizens). By the way, could an Indian citizen on a temporary visa be elected MP, and then find himself deported? Of course, no party would candidate such a person for election, but is it a technical possibility?

[Wanderer]

What are the main differences between ILR and being a British Citizen apart from the fact about leaving the country for long periods of time?

- exempt from deportation

Waht would be the scenario if the BC was found to be obtained fraudulently? Presumably BC can be stripped and thus the person can be deported since they are no longer a BC.

[Dawie]

What are the main differences between ILR and being a British Citizen apart from the fact about leaving the country for long periods of time?

- exempt from deportation

Waht would be the scenario if the BC was found to be obtained fraudulently? Presumably BC can be stripped and thus the person can be deported since they are no longer a BC.

As the law stands at the moment they can only be stripped of their BC and deported if they hold another nationality, otherwise they would be left stateless. And of course if they were stateless no country would accept them back for deportation, not even their home country.

[Marco 72]

According to the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, UK citizenship can be revoked at any time if the Home Secretary is satisfied that such a step is conducive to the public good. See here. This also applies to UK-born people with no other nationality.

[Marco 72]

I was wrong, Dawie was right. The original Nationality Act of 1981 included the following "(4) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless." This has not been changed, from what I can see.

However, there seems to be a catch: the Home Secretary can now deprive a person of the right of abode if he is satisfied that this is conducive to the public good (see here). Could this be used against UK citizens with no second nationality? I guess it depends on the following: "The Secretary of State may by order remove from a specified person a right of abode in the United Kingdom which he has under section 2(1)(b)."

[Christophe]

However, there seems to be a catch: the Home Secretary can now deprive a person of the right of abode if he is satisfied that this is conducive to the public good (see here). Could this be used against UK citizens with no second nationality? I guess it depends on the following: "The Secretary of State may by order remove from a specified person a right of abode in the United Kingdom which he has under section 2(1)(b)."

I think that section 2(1)(b)(/b) refers to female Commonwealth citizens whose claim to the right of abode was based on a polygamous marriage. Someone else might know.

In terms of stripping people of their British citizenship if they have no other nationality - that might be all very well (or not, depending on how one views these things), but in practical terms it wouldn't often be particularly useful, since, as JAJ says, it would be likely that no other country would take the person in. In fact, one of the problems the British government has with removing people against whom a deportation order has been granted is that, in such circumstances, some other countries are prone to argue the toss about who and who is not one of their citizens

[Christophe]

By the way, could an Indian citizen on a temporary visa be elected MP, and then find himself deported? Of course, no party would candidate such a person for election, but is it a technical possibility?

Yes, that is a technical possibility. And not just an Indian citizen on a temporary visa, of course - any Commonwealth citizen, except those with the right of abode, and any Irish citizen is liable to deportation from the UK. (In fact, the UK very rarely deports Irish citizens and very rarely deports people with ILR (unlike some countries), although you can, in theory, be a member of parliament on a temporary visa if you fulfil the other criteria in any case.)

[busubi]

What are the main differences between ILR and being a British Citizen apart from the fact about leaving the country for long periods of time?

- exempt from deportation
- British citizenship for overseas born children (restricted if you're British by descent)
- Civil Service employment
- British passport and consular protection
- right to vote and hold public office (unless you're already a Commonwealth/Irish citizen)
- Treaty Rights in other EU/EEA states plus Switzerland
- shorter waiting period for naturalisation for non-British spouse

Thanks.

I wondered why so many people don't just settle for ILR. Now I know thanks.

[Christophe]

I'd also add the greater sense of belonging that some people feel on becoming a citizen of the country in which they live rather than just a permanent resident. This is not something that can be quantified, of course, nor is it an important issue for everyone, but for some people it is very significant.

[ppron747]

......I think that section 2(1)(b) refers to female Commonwealth citizens whose claim to the right of abode was based on a polygamous marriage. Someone else might know.....

Section 2(1)(b) has, since 1.1.83, applied to Commonwealth citizens and British subjects who originally acquired the right of abode before '83, either through a UK-born British parent or (in the case of a woman) through marriage - not necessarily polygamous - to a man with ROA.

I think the power to strip someone of ROA was really introduced to clear up an inconsistency - an example might be a Commonwealth citizen with UK-born parents. So he's also a British citizen. If he commits some heinous act, deemed worthy of depriving him of his British citizenship, there's not much point in doing that unless you can also strip him of the right of abode he derives through being a C'wealth citizen with a UK-born parent.

[JAJ]

Waht would be the scenario if the BC was found to be obtained fraudulently? Presumably BC can be stripped and thus the person can be deported since they are no longer a BC.

As the law stands at the moment they can only be stripped of their BC and deported if they hold another nationality, otherwise they would be left stateless. And of course if they were stateless no country would accept them back for deportation, not even their home country.

I don't think that's quite right. A BC can be stripped of citizenship on the basis of fraud even if "statelessness" would result:

From the 2002 Act amendment to the BNA 1981:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20041--b.htm#4

"(3) The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status which results from his registration or naturalisation if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of-
(a) fraud,
(b) false representation, or
(c) concealment of a material fact.

(4) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless."

Note that there is no equivalent prohibition against a section 40(3) order.

[JAJ]

In fact, one of the problems the British government has with removing people against whom a deportation order has been granted is that, in such circumstances, some other countries are prone to argue the toss about who and who is not one of their citizens

Although that leads to a strong argument that the United Kingdom should cease to accept the passports of such countries as valid travel documents for entry into the United Kingdom.

[Marco 72]

What if a naturalised BC is tried and convicted of a crime committed before he applied for naturalisation? Would it be possible for him to be stripped of his citizenship? I have heard of this happening in the US. He needn't have lied on his application form. For example when he applied for naturalisation he could have been under the mistaken impression that he had committed no crime.

[Christophe]

......I think that section 2(1)(b) refers to female Commonwealth citizens whose claim to the right of abode was based on a polygamous marriage. Someone else might know.....

Section 2(1)(b) has, since 1.1.83, applied to Commonwealth citizens and British subjects who originally acquired the right of abode before '83, either through a UK-born British parent or (in the case of a woman) through marriage - not necessarily polygamous - to a man with ROA.

Thanks - I thought wrong! That will teach me to say things without looking them up...

[Christophe]

In fact, one of the problems the British government has with removing people against whom a deportation order has been granted is that, in such circumstances, some other countries are prone to argue the toss about who and who is not one of their citizens

Although that leads to a strong argument that the United Kingdom should cease to accept the passports of such countries as valid travel documents for entry into the United Kingdom.

Absolutely - although it could prove in some cases to be a diplomatic minefield, of course, and the grief might not be worth the hoped-for benefit.