UKBA – The UK Border Agency has announced that refugees and migrants with humanitarian protection in the UK will be allowed to apply for settlement and British citizenship under the current rules if their initial five-year permission to stay here will end between August 2010 and the date when the ‘earned citizenship’ system comes into force (scheduled for July 2011).
If you are granted refugee status or humanitarian protection in the UK, we initially give you permission to stay here (also known as ‘limited leave to remain’) for five years. Under the current rules, you can apply for permission to settle here permanently (also known as ‘indefinite leave to remain’) when your initial permission to stay ends. When you are given indefinite leave to remain, we say that you are ‘free of immigration time restrictions’. If you have been free of immigration time restrictions for one year, and you meet certain other requirements, you can apply for British citizenship. The Leave to remain and Can I be naturalised as a British citizen? sections of this website contain more information.
The UK government is now changing the way that migrants progress to British citizenship. We expect that the new system of ‘earned citizenship’, which includes a stage of ‘probationary citizenship’, will come into force in July 2011.
Read more
By Kaye Wiggins
A scheme to fast-track citizenship applications from migrants who do voluntary work for charities will be in place by July 2011, the Home Office has pledged.
The Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Act, which was passed in July this year, contains the provision, which is expected to apply only to those who have volunteered with registered charities, rather than with smaller community groups.
The scheme will allow migrants who have been in the UK for five years to gain citizenship within one further year rather than three if they can prove they have been “active citizens” by volunteering.
Jo Liddy, the national lead for citizenship and permanent migration at the UK Border Agency, told Third Sector: “We will continue to look at the implications of active citizenship on all migrants as we move forward to the introduction of the policy in July 2011.
Read full article here
InterACT is a new Citizenship Foundation project which will be running in communities across the UK over the next three years.
The project is based on the Citizenship Foundation’s award winning Youth Act model. It aims to support groups of 16-25 year old refugees and asylum seekers to come together with locally resident young people and identify joint issues of concern to them, and their communities, and to develop campaigns to tackle them.
Through this process the project seeks to break down barriers to integration for young asylum seekers and refugees, thus building greater community cohesion.
Over the coming months, we will be looking to identify partner organisations in London, Bristol, Birmingham and Cardiff who work with young refugees or with young people from the local community. We will then work with these organisations to deliver a series of workshops to the young people and support them to design and implement their own social action projects in their local communities, in the summer of 2010.
The young people will receive accreditation for taking part in the project, and their achievements will be celebrated at an award ceremony in October 2010. The project will then be rolled out in further communities across the UK from the end of 2010.
For further information about the project please contact Xenia on Xenia.Davis@citizenshipfoundation.org.uk or on 020 7566 4153
In an unusually dramatic move, the Presenting Officer in the recent case of KB (para: 320(7A): “false representations”) Albania [2009] UKAIT 00043 served a section 40 notice on a witness in the case, thereby depriving him of his British citizenship. There is a right of appeal to the tribunal against such a decision and the tribunal records that it advised the unrepresented man to seek legal advice.
This was a case where the witness, who was sponsoring his wife to enter the UK from Albania, had claimed on arrival in the UK in 1999 to be a Kosovar. However, the tribunal records in the determination that the man was a national of Albania, although it is not clear how this was established. The Home Office accused him of lying about his nationality on entry and then continuing with the lie to obtain Exceptional Leave to Remain, then Indefinite Leave to Remain and then finally full British citizenship.
The tribunal, chaired by Mr Ockelton, found that a document obtained through falsehood and relied on in an immigration application does amount to a ‘false representation’ under immigration rule 320(7A) and therefore mandates refusal of the application and appeal. The tribunal goes on to comment that sometimes leave and even citizenship is appears to be granted when it should not have been, as well as the more usual complaint of not being granted when it should have been, before ending by observing that the Presenting Officer in court served the witness with a notice under s.40 of the British Nationality Act 1981:
Before us, Ms Tanner served on the sponsor a Notice of Decision under s40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, depriving the sponsor of his citizenship. We advised the sponsor to seek legal assistance in connection with it.
The case serves as a warning to any Albanian/Kosovans that should they by their actions cast doubt upon the basis on which they were granted ILR or citizenship — such as by sponsoring an Albanian spouse to enter the UK and presenting an Albanian passport — they are opening themselves to potential curtailment or deprivation proceedings.
Source: Free Movement
By Laura Latham
We have become a nation of nomads. Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that over half a million UK citizens have emigrated since 2006, with 158,000 of us packing up last year alone. Should it continue, migration on this scale won’t have been seen since the period after the First World War, when the British government assisted migration of its citizens to the countries of the Commonwealth.
Read more – http://www.independent.co.uk/
By Frances Webber
New nationality legislation will create a class of subjects not citizens.
The one thing which can be said for the empire was that anyone who was born anywhere in its far-flung corners was legally British by birth. True, various stratagems were employed to prevent these imperial subjects from settling in the mother country, but at least they were recognised as belonging to the UK, and Commonwealth citizens retained the words ‘British subject’ in their passports even after they achieved citizenship of newly independent ex-colonies. The inclusive model of British citizenship survived in the ius soli, the entitlement of anyone born in the United Kingdom to its citizenship, until its partial removal in the British Nationality Act 1981.
The model of citizenship set out in the new Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act is as far from that inclusionary model as it is possible to get. Citizenship under the new law will have to be earned, and ‘failure to integrate’ ranks with criminal conduct as a reason for withholding the privilege of citizenship.
In fact, of course, those not born on British territory who wanted to naturalise as British citizens have always had to jump through hoops of residence, intentions, character and language proficiency. None of that is new, although according to the ministerial hype accompanying the Act as it went through parliament, citizenship followed five years’ residence as night followed day under the old system. And since 2002, candidates for citizenship (and since 2007, all who seek permanent residence) have had to pass ‘Life in the UK’ tests, and dual nationals can have British citizenship revoked for various forms of undesirable conduct. So the government’s new earned citizenship measures are not exactly drawn on a blank canvas.
The legislation
What the provisions of the new Act do is to increase the period of residence required before citizenship can be applied for, from the current five years to eight years (and from three to five if citizenship is sought by someone related to a British citizen), but allow earlier applications – after six and three years respectively – from those participating in some (as yet unspecified) form of voluntary work. Additionally, the ‘good character’ test in the Act is to be broadened – presumably by ministerial regulations – to include failure to integrate into British society.
The consultation paper
But the Act is only the beginning of a process which will involve selection not just for citizens but for anyone seeking to stay in the country more than temporarily. The consultation paper accompanying the Act makes it clear that anyone who wants to stay in the UK permanently will be expected to take the ‘journey to citizenship’. It will no longer be an option to obtain ‘indefinite leave to remain’ and not seek British citizenship. The would-be resident will have to obtain ‘probationary citizenship leave’, and the proposal is for a rigorous selection process at that stage. No longer will those who have been in the UK on a work or business permit for five years obtain permanent settlement provided they are still in the same job or business. The proposal is for a points-based ‘probationary citizenship leave’, so that to obtain permanent settlement, they would have to earn a certain number of points, based on such assets as earning potential; special artistic, scientific or literary merit; qualifications; shortage occupation; English (above existing requirements); and having lived and worked in a part of the UK in need of further immigration, eg Scotland.
The paper adds: ‘Points might also be deducted for failure to integrate into British life; for criminal or anti-social behaviour, or in circumstances where an active disregard for UK values is demonstrated.’ (This ‘active disregard for British values’ would apparently include participation in lawful demonstrations such as those against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, since according to Home Office minister Phil Woolas, in an interview on the Radio 4 Today programme on 3 August, it is reasonable to expect higher standards of ‘adherence’ from would-be citizens than from citizens.)
The points-based system will give the Home Office a far greater degree of control over the numbers obtaining settlement in the country, enabling officials to lower or raise the number of points needed, making permanent residence easier or more difficult to achieve, according to political or economic expedience. By the same token, it introduces massive uncertainty into the lives of lawful migrants who work in the UK and wish to settle down here. They will be ‘on probation’ for years – a status which encourages obedience, compliance with unfair or exploitative working practices, political, social and cultural conservatism. In short, what the government seeks to achieve through the Act and the proposals designed to flesh it out is a class of subjects, not citizens.
HAT News is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.
By Simon Johnson
The SNP administration at Holyrood has for the first time raised the concept of people holding “dual citizenship” following Scottish independence.
But Opposition parties said the promise was Mr Salmond’s most desperate attempt yet to convince a sceptical Scottish public to back the break-up of Britain.
It is the latest in a series of climbdowns after he ruled, to the displeasure of many of his party’s rank-and-file, that the Queen would remain head of state.
The First Minister has also promised that a separate Scotland would keep the Pound, at least initially, and even that the Bank of England would continue to set interest rates north of the Border.
However, his citizenship pledge risks infuriating extremist elements of his party, known as the “fundies”, short for fundamentalists, who are infamous for their anti-British rhetoric.
Leading SNP figures, including John Swinney, the party’s former leader, have previously launched high-profile tirades against “the Brits” and the “Brit establishment”.
Six years ago Mr Swinney, now the Scottish finance minister said the SNP should “ask the big question – do you want independence, yes or no? And then tell the Brits to get off.”
Mr Salmond plans to hold a referendum next year, but a recent YouGov opinion poll said that barely a quarter of the population back the break-up of Britain.
The British citizenship promise is made in a Scottish Executive report, launched in Brussels yesterday (tues), examining foreign policy in post-independence Scotland.
It is the latest in a series of papers SNP ministers plan to release as part of the National Conversation, their taxpayer-funded campaign promoting separation.
The document shows Mr Salmond envisages an independent Scotland continuing to use UK embassies abroad, becoming a haven for asylum seekers, and enjoying an open border with England.
It indicates states that a flexible attitude to citizenship would be adopted, with people allowed to be Scottish and British.
“Given Scotland’s close ties to the other parts of the British Isles a positive approach to dual citizenship would be essential,” the paper argues.
“And given the existence of EU citizenship consideration could also be given to the creation of enhanced citizenship arrangements with the nations of the UK.”
This could include rights such as voting entitlements, along the lines of the current set-up which gives Irish Republic citizens rights to vote in the UK.
But Murdo Fraser, Scottish Tory deputy leader, said: This SNP government doesn’t seem to care that it is frittering away hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money on this pointless national chit chat.
“I can tell them something for free – the Scottish people don’t want independence, which is why the SNP is proposing desperate solutions like dual nationality.”
The paper considers four options, which range from the status quo to full independence, and argues there is “no reason” why a separate Scotland should not continue to “share services” with UK embassies abroad.
However, a Whitehall source said this was unrealistic, arguing: “No one who has had an acrimonious divorce would ever rent a room in their house to the person who has left.”
Most of the 59-page document is taken up with accusations that British foreign policy fails to take into account Scotland’s interests.
Among the examples the report provides is the UK’s failure to prevent the EU limiting the amount of new woodland that can be planted north of the Border.
In an independent Scotland, the report states a policy of “integration” for asylum seekers and refugees would be pursued “from day one of their arrival”.
They would be allowed to work while awaiting results of their claim and, even if they are rejected, they could be allowed to stay if they have a job.
But the paper makes no mention of joining the Euro, following Alex Salmond’s prediction earlier this year that the single currency would be a vote winner in his battle for independence.
Anne McGuire, a Labour MP, said the SNP’s policy was illogical and “increasingly desperate”.
“They cannot assert that Scotland needs something different, but in the same breath decide to piggy-back on our existing experience and structures,” she said.
By Rahila Gupta
The minute benefits gained by UK migrants are disappearing in the face of the government’s new citizenship crackdowns.
We know that we can point out the benefits of migration to this country, adducing statistics and surveys endlessly, but an angry red rash on the rump of this society will not die down. Until this recession, when the booming economy could only be sustained by high levels of migration, the government did a reasonable job of presenting an evidence-based case for the increase in economic growth that was attributable to the presence of migrants, the need to fill the skills gap and the low rate of inflation (achieved partly by the scandalously low wages paid to migrants). Some surveys of public opinion seemed to indicate that “economic” migrant was no longer a dirty word.
Those minute gains have evaporated now. For all those who arrived here when they were desperately needed and who could have applied for citizenship after working legally for five years, the government wants to slow down their route to citizenship by placing a number of obstacles in their path. It wants to maintain the expendability of the migrant workforce so they can be squeezed till the pips squeak. While some of the required attributes are pragmatic, though unethical, one is a naked attempt at social control – Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, suggested that even if it is legal to protest, it could slow down the path to citizenship: that it was right to set different and higher standards for those aspiring to be British. Hitherto, the problem was that migrants were not British enough in terms of language, culture and liberal values – now docility must be part of the mix.
Social control is also exercised at the other end of the spectrum, where unskilled migrants are doing jobs that locals will not do, but in this case with clear economic gains for profiteering companies. A number of recent workplace victories by the Justice for Cleaners campaign for the London living wage have been followed up by immigration raids. Cleaners were asked to come in on a false pretext such as training and found immigration officials waiting for them. Some of them were subsequently deported.
Some of the deportees had worked for their companies for years and their immigration status was well-known but conveniently overlooked. While they were prepared to work for low wages, the companies were happy to continue employing them. As soon as they flexed their muscles, the employers blew the whistle.
Employers everywhere are using the recession as an excuse to cut or freeze wages, even as they continue to remain profitable. The advantage of outsourcing cleaning contracts is that private contractors are unaccountable and the exploitation happens at one remove. Institutions can maintain a clear conscience until political action attracts support for the cleaners and with it, negative publicity.
In fact the last thing we should be doing is making it difficult for migrants to stay. According to a new IPPR report, international competition for highly skilled migrants is set to increase and a band of “super-mobile” migrants will move from country to country to secure the best wages and conditions. Temporary migrants certainly boost the pension, welfare and tax take for Britain as a whole without drawing on the benefits later but, when they’re gone, will there be enough workers left to provide the sweat, blood and toil that keep the fat cats fat, the services running and the pension funds topped up? – Guardian
By Chris Huhne
While we need to clarify the rules for obtaining British citizenship, curtailing people’s freedom of expression is a big mistake.
There is the germ of a good idea in the government’s proposals for a points-based test for citizenship. It is reasonable to expect people who want to become British citizens to have worked, paid taxes, speak the language and not to have engaged in criminal acts. It is also reasonable to suggest that people who go the extra mile and volunteer in their local community might gain extra brownie points on their path to citizenship. As with so many proposals from this tired government, however, the good ideas become lost in declarations designed to court the more punitive sections of public opinion and the popular press.
In this case, the good ideas are obscured by the statement from Alan Johnson in the News of the World that points could be docked for bad behaviour. This is understandable if the government is referring to people committing criminal offences, but the notion seems to go further. The home secretary seems to want to be the chief constable of the thought police. In insisting that people demonstrate a commitment to Britain, they are suggesting that people could be barred from citizenship for engaging in “unpatriotic behaviour”. This strikes me as being distinctly un-British.
Britain has a proud history of freedom of expression and of citizen protest. Despite recent government attempts to curtail such freedoms, it is precisely this tradition that attracts many people to this country in the first place. It is paradoxical to suggest that migrants could be prevented from acquiring citizenship for engaging in behaviour that British citizens take for granted. People should not be barred from becoming British citizens merely because they have the temerity to criticise government policy. If that were the case, I would have failed any citizenship test many times over. Even some members of the Labour party would find it hard to pass.
The difficulties of such a proposal become obvious when you think of the practicalities. There would presumably be a team of Home Office mandarins in an office somewhere judging the “behaviour” of thousands of people working towards citizenship. Some cases might be clear cut, such as that of the violent protesters against returning squaddies in Luton. But most cases would be lost in a large and messy grey area. Publicly marching against the Iraq war, because it was illegal under international law? Publicly marching against the Afghan war, which was legal? The government will find itself facing difficult decisions and inevitably making mistakes in a system that will be both subjective and bureaucratic.
The government is right to clarify the rules for obtaining British citizenship. They have created record numbers of new British citizens in an attempt to paper over the substantial cracks in their immigration policy. It is a mistake, however, to be telling future British citizens what to think and what to say. You can be fully committed to this country. Indeed, you can be a model citizen, and you can still have any number of grievances with government policy. We want more people who would be prepared to speak out in this country, not less. British citizenship must never be dependant on towing the party line. It is far too precious for that.
This is a question many immigrants and immigration lawyers are asking themselves about the so-called Points Based System. Genuine highly skilled immigrants and foreign students are considering heading to other countries and immigration lawyers are conflicted: the points based system is great for business but this is because it is so maddeningly badly implemented. If only the Home Office did what ILPA suggested, there would be a lot less work for ILPA members!
More bad news: there’s a splash by the Home Office today about how a similar so-called points system is to be extended to nationality applications.
The media coverage is frustrating. The main Home Office justification for the change is that the proposed new system will allow them to refuse citizenship to those of bad character. THERE IS ALREADY A GOOD CHARACTER REQUIREMENT FOR BRITISH NATIONALITY. Even at the moment it is for the Home Office decide who has or does not have good character. A criminal offence pretty much precludes one from citizenship, but it is certainly not limited to those who have committed offences. I’ve come across cases where the aspirant citizen has a bad reputation but no convictions and is still refused. Indeed, I was instructed on a case like this only a fortnight ago and had to tell the chap he didn’t have a leg to stand on.
The Home Office press releases explicitly suggest that in the past anyone could become a British citizen. This simply isn’t true, and it would have represented a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Home Office had this been the case.
Now, to the rub. To suggest that applications in future will be judged on points is entirely misleading. I have no doubt at all that the Home Office will not introduce a system whereby a person commits a criminal offence but can nonetheless gain citizenship by doing lots of voluntary work: points are lost through the criminal offence but can be made up in some other way. If the Home Office did implement a genuine points system of this nature, it would be a lot more generous than the current system. This isn’t exactly the spin they are putting on it now, though, I notice.
The Home Office persists in pretending that the new immigration system is a ‘points based system’, but in fact it is full of mandatory requirements. For example, 10 points are available for English language. These 10 points are mandatory and must be scored. One is awarded 0 points or 10 points. There are many other similar examples. Several so-called points based categories require a certificate of sponsorship. 50 points are available for such a certificate. 50 points are needed. There is no way other than through the certificate to score the necessary 50 points. Why dress it all up as ‘points based’ when actually it is full of mandatory requirements? The citizenship rules will no doubt be the same.
Just by-the-by, still Immigration Minister Phil Woolas’ asserted on Today this morning that only citizens have a right of free speech. Others don’t apparently. I’m not sure whether he really believes this or whether it was another example of his mouth opening and ignorant, uninformed rubbish coming out. It’s rather worrying either way.
Source: Free Movement
« Previous Page — Next Page »
