The Newest Knee-Jerk Reaction towards Immigration Here in the UK.

Firstly, I am not sure whether this belongs in Grievances or not, so I'm sure that if it doesn't, it will be moved.

I am so effing livid! Along with 40% of others, (because that's the percentage of people who have their INDEFINITE LEAVE TO REMAIN (ILR) as Permanent Residents and are not or do not have the inclination to become "citizens") have gone through the system to be able to legally stay in the UK are now being told by the government that if they don't become citizens, then they can damn well bugger off.

I can understand if the government decided that starting on such-and-such a date, all immigrants wanting to settle in the UK should go through the process of becoming Uk citizens (if that's what this government wants); however, those that have already dutifully done their bit should be under some sort of grandfather clause. Since when does INDEFINITE no longer mean INDEFINITE? Since when does INDEFINITE mean that you can have the rug pulled out from under you and told that if you DO NOT become a citizen of this country then you can just....BUGGER OFF?

I do have to say that when I tell Brits about this new mandate coming down the pipe, every single one has said that this is typical of this government...every single one has said that this was a "Knee Jerk Reaction." Their words, not mine. And the first question out of their mouths is..."Doesn't INDEFINITE mean f-o-r-e-v-e-r???"    Yeah, I thought so too.

What ever happened to principles and trust and if you play the game legally and above board and pay your dues and go through all the red tape, tears, anxiety and jump through all the hoops that are thrown at you to get that precious Indefinite Leave to Remain to be able to stay here p-e-r-m-a-n-e-n-t-l-y, and then have a government say...sorry, but we really didn't mean that?

Is that what this all means? Is the government speaking "double-speak"; another words, if something is denied long enough, it becomes truth. There is an old-fashion word for that..lying.

I agree that it isn't fair. They have had a similar system in the US for some while, haven't they? A friend of mine was told years ago that he would only have one more green card renewal, after that it was apply for naturalization or leave the country. (They were too polite to say 'bugger off'.)

"Doesn't INDEFINITE mean f-o-r-e-v-e-r???"    Yeah, I thought so too.

Indefinite (adjective):

 Not definite, especially:

   1. Unclear; vague.
   2. Lacking precise limits: an indefinite leave of absence.
   3. Uncertain; undecided

Definition: ambiguous, vague

Antonyms: certain, definite, distinct, fixed, limited, sure

Most British people I talk to know so little about immigration that they think it's all ready the system and then the conversation usually goes into a discussion of immigrants and asylum seekers and ends with '....but I'm not talking about people like YOU, Mindy.........' 

I've not heard about this. Does anyone have any links showing that they may change the rules of ILR?

I agree that it isn't fair. They have had a similar system in the US for some while, haven't they? A friend of mine was told years ago that he would only have one more green card renewal, after that it was apply for naturalization or leave the country. (They were too polite to say 'bugger off'.)

Indefinite (adjective):

 Not definite, especially:

   1. Unclear; vague.
   2. Lacking precise limits: an indefinite leave of absence.
   3. Uncertain; undecided

Definition: ambiguous, vague

Antonyms: certain, definite, distinct, fixed, limited, sure

Contrex, this is not the United States, this is the United Kingdom. No where in the laws, as they now stand, does it say that one has to go beyond their ILR.
_________________________________________________ _____________________________________

Indefinite leave to remain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indefinite leave to remain (ILR) is an immigration status granted to a person who does not hold right of abode in the United Kingdom, but who has been admitted to the UK without any time limit on his or her stay and who is free to take up employment or study, without restriction. When indefinite leave is granted to persons outside the United Kingdom it is known as indefinite leave to enter (ILE).

A person who has indefinite leave to remain, right of abode, or is an Irish citizen, has settled status if resident in the United Kingdom (as do British citizens living in the UK).

Settled status is central to British nationality law, as the most usual route to naturalisation or registration as a British citizen requires that the applicant be settled in the UK. Settled status is also important where a child of non-British citizen parents is born in the UK, as unless at least one parent has settled status the child will not automatically be a British citizen.


Loss of indefinite leave to remain

ILR may be lost if a person leaves the United Kingdom and on return is given leave to enter other than for an indefinite period. This may be because, e.g., they mistakenly seek to enter as a visitor, or the immigration officer believes that they do not intend to reside in the United Kingdom.

ILR may also be curtailed by the Home Secretary for reasons of national security or if the holder of the ILR commits an offence that could lead to their deportation from the United Kingdom

A person may also lose ILR by leaving the United Kingdom for more than two years. However, in some circumstances such a person may reapply for indefinite leave to enter the UK.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I am not against anyone getting their naturalization, if they so choose, what I am against is the fact that the laws may be changed and in doing so, disregarding the legality of permanent residents as they stand now. As, I mentioned in my rant, if the government wants to require all immigrants to become naturalized, then they should set a starting date as X date for those coming in, not those that are already here,
allowing the choices still to made with those who have already gotten their permanent residence (ILR/ILEs).

I've not heard about this. Does anyone have any links showing that they may change the rules of ILR?

Ashley, do you have the Home Office website? If not...
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/

I think it's worth realising that no specific proposals as to what will happen to people with ILR have been published yet.  Until they are, speculating is fairly premature.  It is true that they're planning on rewriting the law so as to at least heavily encourage citizenship over ILR/permanent residence, but nowhere in the Path to Citizenship and related papers does it actually say that they are definitely for sure planning to make ILR holders apply for citizenship or else (although they may in the future, I don't know.)  The final proposals could still change...

I think it's worth realising that no specific proposals as to what will happen to people with ILR have been published yet.  Until they are, speculating is fairly premature.  It is true that they're planning on rewriting the law so as to at least heavily encourage citizenship over ILR/permanent residence, but nowhere in the Path to Citizenship and related papers does it actually say that they are definitely for sure planning to make ILR holders apply for citizenship or else (although they may in the future, I don't know.)  The final proposals could still change...

Yes, I agree. However, it still really bugs me. The principle of it. And, yes, I will probably go ahead and pull money out of our retirement and bite the bullet (perhaps even before this may or may not go through); however, the notion (if it should go through) that one is made to do it to stay with a loved one just galls me. It just so goes against everything I stand for.
That's all. Principle. Faith in a government to keep it's word. Out of the 40% of foreign nationals who only have their ILR/ILEs, many must be residents here for a very long time, and to have the government now (perhaps) say that they are no longer permanent would be quite a shock.

Again, I am not arguing for or against naturalization. However, why can't it just stand as is? A choice.

Georgia, I can completely understand the way you feel about all of this, as I was in a similar position to you.  I got ILE ages ago before any of this current immigration fuss began, and I had no thoughts of naturalisation.  In fact, I thought it was impossible, since I thought that the USA did not allow dual citizenship unless you were born to it, as my son is. 

However, I began to get concerned late last year, when the government began talking about issuing ID cards to foreign nationals.  Then, last February, Jacqui Smith stated that foreign nationals would either have to become naturalised, or else leave the country.  (There is a thread about it in the Citizenship and Visa board that you can find if you search for Jacqui Smith.)  Although this is not law yet, it certainly seems to be the way this government is going.  I decided to go ahead and naturalise, since it turned out that I was wrong about dual nationality.  And I will say that being naturalised does give at least two benefits - no longer being under any sort of immigration control, and possibly more important - the right to vote.  That is certainly a right that I am looking forward to exercising, as this current government becomes more frightening with each passing day.

Chanah, I totally agree with you. My DH doesn't think I will have to do this because he doesn't think the bill will become law.  However, I am more cynical about governments and don't trust them at all.  So, I suppose when I get back from visiting my oldest daughter (and helping her out with the grandkids, while my son-in-law is in Iraq) in April, I will start proceedings towards getting naturalized. That is, if I still have any money left (seeing as the stock market is in a spiral) to pull out to pay for the paperwork involved. Funnily, I will be gone starting from 4 Feb 2009 and returning 15 Apr 2009, making it the longest I have been out of this country in five years.

I agree that it isn't fair. They have had a similar system in the US for some while, haven't they? A friend of mine was told years ago that he would only have one more green card renewal, after that it was apply for naturalization or leave the country. (They were too polite to say 'bugger off'.)

Maybe it's changed, but that wasn't the case in the past in the US. My ex-husband had his green card for almost 30 years (was considered a permanent resident) and even served in the military before choosing to become a citizen and was never told he had to get his citizenship.

Maybe it's changed, but that wasn't the case in the past in the US. My ex-husband had his green card for almost 30 years (was considered a permanent resident) and even served in the military before choosing to become a citizen and was never told he had to get his citizenship.

Similarly with my aunt, who has been in the US for 30 years: she moved to the US in 1978 but didn't apply for her US citizenship until 2001. As far as I am aware, she was never under any pressure to become a citizen, it was her own choice.

There are several threads on this in the immigration boards.  Nothing is set in stone yet. It still needs to be debated in Parliament.  We are staying on the case (especially arry) and if this actually is part of the final proposals there will be some campaigning which all interested parties can help with if you wish.

Vicky

As Vicky said, nothing's set in stone and there're links in the Visa section, but here's a quick link to a news-feed of the proposed changes from the Border Agency site: http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsfragments/naturalisingasabritishcitizen.

The immigration sucks in this country, full stop! I'm saying this as a Brit, the government reckons the recent flood of immigration is all down to everybody OUTSIDE the EU (you guys for example). Well, the problem is within the EU but they don't see that. Polish, Slovakian and Czech immigrants are the worst sort because they are the ones flooding in.

Everybody outside the EU has to go through the citizens process because of course you aren't in the EU. Inside the EU you can come in as you please, work and rake in benifits without applying to stay.

There is squat you can do because I feel the UK and EU has become a dictatorship rather than a democracy. Gordon Brown becoming Prime Minister is one example, am I right?

The immigration sucks in this country, full stop! I'm saying this as a Brit, the government reckons the recent flood of immigration is all down to everybody OUTSIDE the EU (you guys for example). Well, the problem is within the EU but they don't see that. Polish, Slovakian and Czech immigrants are the worst sort because they are the ones flooding in.

Everybody outside the EU has to go through the citizens process because of course you aren't in the EU. Inside the EU you can come in as you please, work and rake in benefits without applying to stay.

There is squat you can do because I feel the UK and EU has become a dictatorship rather than a democracy. Gordon Brown becoming Prime Minister is one example, am I right?

I don't have a problem with EU Citizens here but I do disagree with the allowance of benefits given to them almost immediately when other have to wait until they are Brit Citizens ....but I have had that debate here already and it ends nasty! so be very careful