Brexit matters

[Yew]

I assume you mean indefinite leave to remain and to a degree I'm supportive of that but if soeone with IRL has all the rights of someone who is a citizen what is the point of citizenship?

They don't, they don't have a passport and consular assistance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==

If long term residents wish to vote then they should take out citizenship - how much they might have paid in tax has got no bearing.

That approach faired us well in the 1700's with the American colonies. What was their cry, "no taxation without representation"?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==

You can't have foreign nationals voting on something (such as National Service for citizens) which is then not going to affect them.

In general elections we don't vote for specific policies, but for parties. I could understand if there were to be a referendum excluding them, but to suggest that for a general election shows a fundamental misunderstanding on how our parliamentary democracy works.

 

[RT4038]

That approach faired us well in the 1700's with the American colonies. What was their cry, "no taxation without representation"?

Yes, but that was hardly the same. Someone with ILR has come to the country voluntarily - there is no compulsion for them to stay; they can return to their country of citizenship and exercise their representation rights there (if any - but if there aren't that is no business of the UK). The UK is not a colony which has no voting right to the mother parliament which controls their lives. The ILR holder can, after a period, apply for citizenship, going through the appropriate process. No-one moving country should expect to immediately be able to take part in the politics of that country, and/or without going through the process of gaining citizenship.

 

[Yew]

No-one moving country should expect to immediately be able to take part in the politics of that country, and/or without going through the process of gaining citizenship.

I don't remember suggesting "immediately" anywhere?

 

[RT4038]

In general elections we don't vote for specific policies, but for parties. I could understand if there were to be a referendum excluding them, but to suggest that for a general election shows a fundamental misunderstanding on how our parliamentary democracy works.

We vote for parties who have specific policies. Not sure quite who has the fundamental misunderstanding, or why you felt it necessary to make that barb.

 

[najaB]

We vote for parties who have specific policies. Not sure quite who has the fundamental misunderstanding, or why you felt it necessary to make that barb.

I voted for the SNP, who have a policy of Scottish Independence. Was I voting for Scottish independence? No, because there was zero chance that it would happen in the lifetime of this parliament.

 

[RT4038]

I voted for the SNP, who have a policy of Scottish Independence. Was I voting for Scottish independence? No, because there was zero chance that it would happen in the lifetime of this parliament.

Yes, but I think you understand the principle. Citizenship comes with the right to influence the policies of the country. Democracy means that your fellow citizens may be in a majority to override your wishes (and please lets not get into a debate about how democratic the system is - it is the one we are operating). Quite rightly non-citizens do not get this chance at all, aside from the opportunity of changing their status by going through the due process of acquiring citizenship at the appropriate time. How much each voter really gets to influence can be debated (not here though!) but if you believe it is not much or insignificant, then what is the point of arguing whether ILR holders get to vote or not, as presumably it is of no consequence? If it is significant, why would citizens want their future to be influenced by non-citizens who can't be bothered or are not sufficiently committed to acquire citizenship of their land of long term residence?

 

[najaB]

Quite rightly non-citizens do not get this chance at all, aside from the opportunity of changing their status by going through the due process of acquiring citizenship at the appropriate time.

I still don't see how the fact that someone has spent time and money to get ILR status shows less commitment to the country than someone whose citizenship is based on the nationality of one or both of their parents. Can you explain the logic there please?

 

[Annetts key]

All the different levels of rights is typical of the outdated and backward way that we do things in this country. I wonder if this is a left over from our class system.

I would much prefer it was simplified to just three states, these being not a citizen, temporary citizenship (e.g. students or others staying for a defined time period, not exceeding three years) and permanent citizenship.

All other types of leave to remain would be phased out, with people either gaining temporary citizenship or permanent citizenship, depending on which would be most appropriate.

The stupid citizenship test would be discontinued. The fee for citizenship would be permanently linked to be exactly the same cost as a passport.

As for voting in general elections, I see no reason why people who live in this country (and under my system, have either temporary citizenship or permanent citizenship) should not be able to vote, hence I would allow then to vote.

 

[RT4038]

I still don't see how the fact that someone has spent time and money to get ILR status shows less commitment to the country than someone whose citizenship is based on the nationality of on or both of their parents. Can you explain the logic there please?

The one is a non-citizen; from another country. I do not think it unreasonable to expect a non-citizen (who has birthright citizenship in another country) to go through the process of ILR and citizenship in order to obtain the same rights and privileges of citizens (whether by birthright or acquisition). Comparing that process to someone who has citizenship by birthright and as to who is the most committed is a nonsense. As a birthright citizen you are presumed to be committed. As a non citizen one has to prove it, and the accepted way throughout the world of proving it is by naturalisation as a citizen.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==

All the different levels of rights is typical of the outdated and backward way that we do things in this country. I wonder if this is a left over from our class system.

I would much prefer it was simplified to just three states, these being not a citizen, temporary citizenship (e.g. students or others staying for a defined time period, not exceeding three years) and permanent citizenship.

All other types of leave to remain would be phased out, with people either gaining temporary citizenship or permanent citizenship, depending on which would be most appropriate.

The stupid citizenship test would be discontinued. The fee for citizenship would be permanently linked to be exactly the same cost as a passport.

As for voting in general elections, I see no reason why people who live in this country (and under my system, have either temporary citizenship or permanent citizenship) should not be able to vote, hence I would allow then to vote.

I don't think any other country dispenses citizenship so willingly!

Maybe if every other country in the world adopts the same system on the same day.....

Why would citizens want students coming for a temporary period to the country to be voting and influencing their lives?

 

[najaB]

I do not think it unreasonable to expect a non-citizen (who has birthright citizenship in another country) to go through the process of ILR and citizenship in order to obtain the same rights and privileges of citizens (whether by birthright or acquisition).

Why the "and citizenship"? Getting ILR has already cost them in excess of £2,000 and normally means that they have lived here for 10 years or more (and have paid the various fees for visas during that time), or have been granted a work permit and have been in continuous employment filling a role that no British-born person wanted to fill. Meanwhile, young James from Todmorden just happened to fall out of the vagina of a UK citizen.

 

[RT4038]

Why the "and citizenship"? Getting ILR has already cost them in excess of £2,000 and normally means that they have lived here for 10 years or more (and have paid the various fees for visas during that time), or have been granted a work permit and have been in continuous employment filling a role that no British-born person wanted to fill. Meanwhile, young James from Todmorden just happened to fall out of the vagina of a UK citizen.

Why not? It is what would be expected in just about every other country. If the ILR holder doesn't like it, they can always go back to their country of citizenship.

 

[najaB]

Why not? It is what would be expected in just about every other country.

Many countries allow permanent residents to vote in local elections, if not general. We allow many Commonwealth citizens to vote in our general elections, which renders your point rather moot.

If the ILR holder doesn't like it, they can always go back to their country of citizenship.

That didn't take long.

 

[RT4038]

Many countries allow permanent residents to vote in local elections, if not general.

And many don't.

That didn't take long.

Because it is quite true. No-one is forcing them to stay - either apply for citizenship and vote or stay and don't worry about voting.

Maybe we could put the matter to a referendum of citizens?

 

[Annetts key]

Where rights are concerned, we should lead the world, not follow at the back like a bunch of sad losers. Similarly, just because it’s traditional, doesn’t mean that we can’t improve things.

Just because other countries do it differently doesn’t mean that we can’t have a better system.

The aim is to have a better society. By being more inclusive and enabling people who have chosen to come and live here to vote, that’s increasing democracy.

 

[jfollows]

Nigel Farage appears to have finally got it (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-rishi-sunak-conservatives-uk-politics-latest):

What Brexit has proved, I’m afraid, is that our politicians are about as useless as the commissioners in Brussels. We’ve mismanaged this totally …
Brexit has failed … We’ve not delivered on borders, we’ve not delivered on Brexit and the Tories have let us down very, very badly.

So he's worked out now what I knew in 2016 - whatever I thought of "Brussels" the people in Westminster were equally incompetent and therefore there was no point going through a massive upheaval to leave the EU and replace one lot of politicians with another lot of politicians. I have always believed that the stuff about "sovereignty" was just a dressed up excuse for a transfer of power to UK government and its ministers, not to parliament or to the people, and everything that's happened since 2016 has convinced me that I was right.

 

[RT4038]

Where rights are concerned, we should lead the world, not follow at the back like a bunch of sad losers. Similarly, just because it’s traditional, doesn’t mean that we can’t improve things.

Just because other countries do it differently doesn’t mean that we can’t have a better system.

The aim is to have a better society. By being more inclusive and enabling people who have chosen to come and live here to vote, that’s increasing democracy.

I really don't see why citizens (of any country for that matter) would want incoming non-citizen residents to have any influence over the politics of their country, without those incomers demonstrating commitment to the country that they have chosen to be resident in. To do this, they can go through the appropriate processes and obtain citizenship. Non citizens can exercise their democratic rights in the country for which they have citizenship.

 

[class ep-09]

Nigel Farage appears to have finally got it (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-rishi-sunak-conservatives-uk-politics-latest):

So he's worked out now what I knew in 2016 - whatever I thought of "Brussels" the people in Westminster were equally incompetent and therefore there was no point going through a massive upheaval to leave the EU and replace one lot of politicians with another lot of politicians. I have always believed that the stuff about "sovereignty" was just a dressed up excuse for a transfer of power to UK government and its ministers, not to parliament or to the people, and everything that's happened since 2016 has convinced me that I was right.

100% correct .

That and making money on crashing economy - such as buying assets well below market value , when £££ tanked .

Also , to avoid EU regulations regarding tax avoidance .

 

[najaB]

I really don't see why citizens (of any country for that matter) would want incoming non-citizen residents to have any influence over the politics of their country, without those incomers demonstrating commitment to the country that they have chosen to be resident in.

And ten years or more living in the country and spending over £2,000 to get indefinite leave to remain demonstrates...?

So you naturally want to strip Commonwealth and Irish citizens of their right to vote, right?

 

[RT4038]

So you naturally want to strip Commonwealth and Irish citizens of their right to vote, right?

You shouldn't make such assumptions. These are historical concessions which, whilst a little anachronistic in today's circumstances, I see no reason to change at present. [If it was thought that these nationals were having an undue influence on UK political affairs then I may have a different view. Many of them would take the opportunity to apply for citizenship anyway. For the time being, let sleeping dogs lie]. However, the nationals of any country that leaves the Commonwealth would lose their voting right (as is the law anyway)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==

And ten years or more living in the country and spending over £2,000 to get indefinite leave to remain demonstrates...?

ten years or more living in the country and spending over £ 3530 to get indefinite leave and citizenship demonstrates even more ....... Some might say that 15 years and £25,000 would be better?

 

[zero]

As a point of information, obtaining indefinite leave to remain used to be free until 2003, when Labour introduced fees (and increased them exponentially during the remainder of their time in office, which the Tories have continued to do). I'm not sure that simply being able to afford an application fee should be a criterion for being granted a vote.

Also until 2012, someone married to, or in a relationship akin to marriage with, a British citizen for over 4 years outside the UK, could obtain indefinite leave to enter, i.e. they could move to the UK and live here permanently (including being eligible to receive benefits from day 1) without demonstrating any commitment to the UK whatsoever, though they would have had to demonstrate commitment to their partner. Before 2003 this may even have been free too.

However in order for such a partner of a British person to apply for citizenship, they would still have had to spend at least 3 years in the UK, demonstrating commitment to the UK.

Of course in the more distant past a foreign woman marrying a British man became a citizen (well, a British subject) instantly.

Commonwealth citizens can vote in the UK because until 1962 they were basically all just British subjects. In Australia, British subjects who were not Australian citizens could register to vote until 1984, and those who were registered before then remain able to vote today.

I have a few relatives who have lived in the UK for many decades with ILR, but have chosen not to become British citizens. Generally this is because they would have to give up their other citizenship(s) and/or lose certain rights in their other country/ies of citizenship - which kind of shows that they are not fully committed to the UK. Though they are all commonwealth citizens so can vote in the UK anyway, but I believe they would choose to lose their UK vote rather than give up their ties to other countries.


The other difference between ILR and citizenship is that ILR is lost if one does not live in the UK for 2 years, although it can be reinstated if you show compelling circumstances for being away. Meanwhile citizenship can only (currently) be lost involuntarily if the government perceives you to be a terrorist, or you lied when applying.

Furthermore, when we were in the EU, EU/EEA citizens who had exercised their EEA treaty rights in the UK for 5 years automatically obtained "permanent residence" without needing to apply for anything (and those EU citizens who came to the UK before 2000 obtained PR on the day they arrived). This status was akin to ILR. I'm not sure it would be a good idea for such people to have automatically become British citizens like some posters have advocated.

 

[RT4038]

As a point of information, obtaining indefinite leave to remain used to be free until 2003, when Labour introduced fees (and increased them exponentially during the remainder of their time in office, which the Tories have continued to do). I'm not sure that simply being able to afford an application fee should be a criterion for being granted a vote.

Fees are quite appropriate for obtaining indefinite leave to remain - there is a cost in providing the administration of the system, which should be financed by the people applying for the privilege.

Also until 2012, someone married to, or in a relationship akin to marriage with, a British citizen for over 4 years outside the UK, could obtain indefinite leave to enter, i.e. they could move to the UK and live here permanently (including being eligible to receive benefits from day 1) without demonstrating any commitment to the UK whatsoever, though they would have had to demonstrate commitment to their partner. Before 2003 this may even have been free too.

However in order for such a partner of a British person to apply for citizenship, they would still have had to spend at least 3 years in the UK, demonstrating commitment to the UK.

Of course in the more distant past a foreign woman marrying a British man became a citizen (well, a British subject) instantly.

Well yes, but the world has changed since then. In particular, abuses of marriages to obtain British citizenship.

I have a few relatives who have lived in the UK for many decades with ILR, but have chosen not to become British citizens. Generally this is because they would have to give up their other citizenship(s) and/or lose certain rights in their other country/ies of citizenship - which kind of shows that they are not fully committed to the UK. Though they are all commonwealth citizens so can vote in the UK anyway, but I believe they would choose to lose their UK vote rather than give up their ties to other countries.

I can understand the dilemma. It can be quite a difficult choice for people, but it is not the UK who have any restrictions on Dual Nationality or impose any loss of rights on those who have (except possibly whilst you are in the other country of your dual nationality).

The other difference between ILR and citizenship is that ILR is lost if one does not live in the UK for 2 years, although it can be reinstated if you show compelling circumstances for being away. Meanwhile citizenship can only (currently) be lost involuntarily if the government perceives you to be a terrorist, or you lied when applying.

All seems reasonable to me.

I'm not sure it would be a good idea for such people to have automatically become British citizens like some posters have advocated.

Quite!

 

[najaB]

Generally this is because they would have to give up their other citizenship(s) and/or lose certain rights in their other country/ies of citizenship - which kind of shows that they are not fully committed to the UK.

Only if you believe that it's impossible for someone to be fully committed to two countries. In which case I will fight you.

 

[tomuk]

Only if you believe that it's impossible for someone to be fully committed to two countries. In which case I will fight you.

Fully
Adverb: Fully means to the greatest degree or extent possible.

 

[najaB]

Fully
Adverb: Fully means to the greatest degree or extent possible.

I'm not sure what point you are making?

 

[RT4038]

Unfortunately some countries force you into making the decision. The UK is not one of them.

Fully
Adverb: Fully means to the greatest degree or extent possible.

Quite.

Only if you believe that it's impossible for someone to be fully committed to two countries. In which case I will fight you.

It is impossible to be fully committed to two countries. If the two countries were in dispute and sides had to be chosen, a scenario not impossible to imagine ......

 

[AlterEgo]

I assume you mean indefinite leave to remain and to a degree I'm supportive of that but if soeone with IRL has all the rights of someone who is a citizen what is the point of citizenship?

Citizens have rights and responsibilities above and beyond those here with indefinite leave to remain. "Recourse to public funds" being one major one when it comes to benefits. A passport and the right to consular assistance. Many "public offices" are restricted to citizens only, too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==

Taking out another country's citizenship is no trivial matter. It is not to be made light of, or treated as some trivial, worthless task.

What did the Factories Act of 1833 principally deal with?

There's a question from the UK Citizenship test.

The UK is making the process absolutely trivial. Start with the government first.

 

[najaB]

It is impossible to be fully committed to two countries.

It's no more impossible than it is for a parent to be fully committed to both their children.

 

[zero]

Citizens have rights and responsibilities above and beyond those here with indefinite leave to remain. "Recourse to public funds" being one major one when it comes to benefits.

People with indefinite leave to remain DO have recourse to public funds.

I think the only thing they can't do apart from vote/stand for office if not Irish/commonwealth, is to work for MI5/MI6 and perhaps certain other positions requiring high level clearance (though I would hazard a guess that certain naturalised citizens and even some born citizens may not be approved).

 

[jfollows]

People with indefinite leave to remain DO have recourse to public funds.

...unless they come to the UK on an adult dependent relative visa, that's to say that you're applying to stay with a dependent relative who has enough money to support you without relying on public funds.
That was the case for my better half, he came to the UK from the USA on this basis, and had "no recourse to public funds" noted on his indefinite leave to remain. He is now a British citizen so it's no longer relevant. And this was >20 years ago so the precise details have probably changed a little.

 

[Annetts key]

Nigel Farage appears to have finally got it (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-rishi-sunak-conservatives-uk-politics-latest):

So he's worked out now what I knew in 2016 - whatever I thought of "Brussels" the people in Westminster were equally incompetent and therefore there was no point going through a massive upheaval to leave the EU and replace one lot of politicians with another lot of politicians. I have always believed that the stuff about "sovereignty" was just a dressed up excuse for a transfer of power to UK government and its ministers, not to parliament or to the people, and everything that's happened since 2016 has convinced me that I was right.

Absolutely agree.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==

It is impossible to be fully committed to two countries. If the two countries were in dispute and sides had to be chosen, a scenario not impossible to imagine ......

Not true. It’s perfectly possible to fully support two different people or countries or whatever in a dispute. You support each with half, the overall support is a full amount.

Alternatively, you could do what a lot of native citizens would do, and provide absolutely no commitment or support whatsoever…