Govt Immigration Rules defeated in High Court

[Chess]

The inhumane immigration rules of Govt can be succesfully defeated..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4894544.stm

[tvt]

I guess the same fate could apply to the ILR increase from 4 to 5.

[FromThere2Here]

I guess the same fate could apply to the ILR increase from 4 to 5.

Unfortunately, the two cases are not comparable. The court case announced today hinged on the fact that the law gave an exemption to people married by the Church of England. This was clearrly discriminatory -- treating one group favourably based on religion.

If anything, this will lead to more tabloid stories about the UK's supposed 10,000-per-year sham marriages, further whipping up anti-immigration sentiment.

[Chess]

Actually the two are comparable..

Why should an immigrant married to a briton get ILR in 3 years while the one on WP/HSMP has to wait 5 years...

if the issue is integration - does that mean that when you are married to a Briton - you integrate much faster?????

[Chris]

I guess the same fate could apply to the ILR increase from 4 to 5.

Unfortunately, the two cases are not comparable. The court case announced today hinged on the fact that the law gave an exemption to people married by the Church of England. This was clearrly discriminatory -- treating one group favourably based on religion.

If anything, this will lead to more tabloid stories about the UK's supposed 10,000-per-year sham marriages, further whipping up anti-immigration sentiment.

How can marring in Church ensure its a not a sham marriage. This is clear discrimination. It reminded me of a Bollywood rubbish 'Ramji London Wale' where this guy converts to christanity to be married by the Church to fool the Home Office, who are already a bunch of fools.

[aj77]

FromThere2Here wrote

Unfortunately, the two cases are not comparable. The court case announced today hinged on the fact that the law gave an exemption to people married by the Church of England. This was clearrly discriminatory -- treating one group favourably based on religion.

Isn' t it discriminatory that if you are married to a briton you will get ILR quickly and if you are on HSMP/work Permit visa, you ll have to wait for 5 years.Timeperiod to qualify for ILR should be equal for all catagories leading to settlement.

[Dawie]

If you want to talk about discrimination......why should EU citizens be allowed to live here without any immigration control and the rest of the world not???? Surely that's discrimination based on someone's nationality? Yet it seems perfectly acceptable to the average person.

It's about time all immigration laws were set aside. Hopefully this case will highlight the fact that immigrants do in fact have rights.

[Kayalami]

1. I believe the issue here was that government has historically never controlled marriage in the sense of giving its written consent/authority for the couple to go ahead with a ceremony - this was the challenge from the date the clause was introduced in the relevant immigration bill. The challenge is right in particular since there are already aspects of the rules pertaining to spousal visas for overstayers and short term visas (visitors) that were not even evaluated as to their effectiveness.

2. However IMHO it is a false illusion to take the view that any country should have an open doors 'one size fits all' immigration policy. There will be various controls in place and these will impact on some more than others. It is common practice across most countries for citizenship rights to be acquired at an earlier stage or with less bureacratic hoops by those married to their nationals - the BNA has been such for 23 years and no one has ever bothered challenge it. Maybe one day there will be a lawyer foolhardy or brave enough to insist that timeline to naturalisation for those on ILR be the same for everyone.

3. It would be useful for contributors on the board to comment on how long it takes to get ILR in their country under employment status (to include whether dependents have any work rights during the time to ILR), ILR via marriage status and likewise timeline to nationality and whether dual is allowed..3-4 simple bullet points. Perhaps that will put some perspective on the ongoing 'UK bashing' - just my 0.02p.

[FromThere2Here]

I agree with Kayalami that there's too much UK bashing going on.

I've gone through the ILR and naturalsation processes here and am amazed by the leniency of the UK (and the efficiency of the HO).

I was stunned to find out how simple it is to get ILR and naturalisation here. Try to get ILR in the US (a green card) and you'll be forced to submit to a physical exam, jabs, and a detailed examination of your finances that makes Croydon look like paradise.

And what about the fact that candidates for naturalisation in the UK don't have to show any income or savings or be proficient in the English language? Do you think that's common? (Yes, I know the Life in UK test supposedly tests for English, but it's a joke. In the US, for example, candidates for citizenship have to be able to speak English fluently; they're tested face-to-face, which is significantly more difficult than reading questions on a test. In Luxembourg, you have to be fluent in Luxembourgish, even though French and German are widely spoken there.)

Also, do you realize that most countries in the EU require a 10-year residence before they'll even consider naturalisation? On top of that, most EU countries don't recognize dual citizenship.

All in all, the UK is incredibly lenient with its immigration policies. To hear people on this forum saying they're being "discriminated" against because they have to wait longer than people who are married to UK citizens -- or because they don't have the same rights as EU citizens -- is an absolute joke. That's the kind of attitude that fuels the anti-immigrant backlash in this country and reinforce some natives' idea of lazy immigrants coming to England and demanding their "rights".

If you seriously don't understand why treating members of one religion differently is discrimination and treating non-EU citizens differently isn't discrimination, then you either don't understand this country very well or you don't agree with some of the basic tenants of a western democracy. Either way, this kind of whining and demanding imaginary "rights" can only hurt the cause of fair and just immigration.

[Naiad]

I think immigration laws are entirely up to the citizens of the country concerned. It's a bit like deciding who you want to invite into your house and on what terms.

I don't like a lot of aspects of it either but I respect that this is the way the people of Britain want it. Being a democracy there are many avenues to pursue policy change and they are free to vote in whatever changes they desire.

[olisun]

and by the time they get tired with their bashing the 1 yr will be up for their ILR....

[Rogerio]

... and then the bashing will be that the UK Government safety net is not very good, long time to naturalise, etc... very good point about "inviting people to your own house".

I agree fully.

Rogerio

[K2004]

why why and more why....

so why if you are student for 10 years you can get an ILR but if you are an illegal you have to wait another 4 years? is this descrimination? and why if you are european you can live and work in the UK freeley but if you are american then you need a work permit... is this descrimination? and why if you are travelling in a business class you have a check in priority? is this descrimination? if everything was so easy.. then there will be no need for this immigrationboards...

[olisun]

Which country gives you a naturalization approval letter in 5 days (my case)?

Which country allows a failed asylum seeker to come back on a work permit?

etc etc... there are so many examples of UK being very easy on immigrants..

and at the end of the day, who does the govt. want to keep happy? the millions of citizens of UK or the immigrants?

I don't want to see a non labour govt. at the centre, do you?

[Marie B]

Why should an immigrant married to a briton get ILR in 3 years while the one on WP/HSMP has to wait 5 years...

Actually an immigrant married to a Briton gets ILR in 2 years, and once they have ILR is eligible for Naturalisation as soon as they have been legally in the country for 3 years, to include any time before the spouse visa. Just to annoy you further.

I notice none of the people moaning at the beginning of this topic have yet replied to Kayalami's suggestion in point 3. I would be quite interested to know how long it would take me to get residency / citizenship in any of your countries, just to see a comparison.

I think 3 years is quite a long time for my husband to wait to get citizenship, other European countries allow citizenship after a year of marriage, when will the UK fall into line with that practice? Answer - never, having in April 2003 upped the length of the spouse visa from 1 to 2 years. A proportionately bigger increase than the WP/HSMP ILR. So until a few years ago a spouse could be a citizen in 2 years. Did you hear any complaints from BC's? No, because the majority are not interested in laws that don't affect them.

[Naiad]

.... Did you hear any complaints from BC's? No, because the majority are not interested in laws that don't affect them.

Actually, immigration laws do affect the citizens of the country concerned so they certainly should take an interest. I notice that Britain (like Australia and a few European countries) is beginning to badger it's young women to have more babies because of economic concerns over an aging population. Obviously having babies is not high on the list of priorities for young women and indeed, for most of us it's not a practicality.

However, immigration is the perfect solution to an aging population. Why breed 'em when they take 18-25yrs and a huge investment before they are productive members of society when you can welcome immigrants of all skills and education levels who are ready to contribute to society right now?

[bbdivo]

Why should an immigrant married to a briton get ILR in 3 years while the one on WP/HSMP has to wait 5 years...

Actually an immigrant married to a Briton gets ILR in 2 years, and once they have ILR is eligible for Naturalisation as soon as they have been legally in the country for 3 years, to include any time before the spouse visa. Just to annoy you further.

I notice none of the people moaning at the beginning of this topic have yet replied to Kayalami's suggestion in point 3. I would be quite interested to know how long it would take me to get residency / citizenship in any of your countries, just to see a comparison.

I think 3 years is quite a long time for my husband to wait to get citizenship, other European countries allow citizenship after a year of marriage, when will the UK fall into line with that practice? Answer - never, having in April 2003 upped the length of the spouse visa from 1 to 2 years. A proportionately bigger increase than the WP/HSMP ILR. So until a few years ago a spouse could be a citizen in 2 years. Did you hear any complaints from BC's? No, because the majority are not interested in laws that don't affect them.

In the US it's 3 years, for 2 years you get a conditional green card with becomes an unconditional one following which after a year you can apply for naturalisation.

I beleive Canada is 3 years also, but to get PR even as a spouse can take up to a year processing.

Even though we read often the reason why UK is changing rules is so that they are more in line with Europe, at the end of the day they can decide to change and be different whenever they want.

edit:-forgot to mention in Canada's case its 3 years whatever category you settle in, so it is the same for skilled migrants.

[Marie B]

Actually, immigration laws do affect the citizens of the country concerned so they certainly should take an interest.

Obviously immigration laws do affect citizens! I was talking about the increase in the duration of the spouse visa from 1-2 years not being of interest to many, you have quoted me out of context.

Perhaps if we didn't keep trying to tempt migrants then the huge investment needed that you mention (in education and training for example) might actually appear for young workers/students already in this country, rather than poaching workers from abroad whose own countries no doubt need them just as much. Interesting article from the Guardian touches on this very topic (and also the topic of cheap labour from overseas keeping pay rates low for minimum wage workers):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 05,00.html

BTW bbdivo - are you sure it only takes 2-3 years in Canada and the US to get residence and citizenship??

Going back to something mentioned earlier:

Timeperiod to qualify for ILR should be equal for all catagories leading to settlement.

Not that this will ever happen, but if it did, I would personally challenge this in court as this would be discriminatory to me as a BC and my husband as a spouse of a BC, for the following reasons:

Even though I am also an EU/EEA citizen my husband can only apply for a spouse visa to come to this country, he is not eligible for an EEA family permit. It is the difference between these two types of visas that would be discriminatory to BC's and their spouses.

-An EEA family permit is free
-A spouse visa currently costs £285.

-It is relatively straight forward to get an EEA family permit.
-A spouse visa generally takes longer to process.

-An EEA family permit holder can apply for ILR after 5 years, BC after a year on ILR.
-A spouse visa holder can apply for ILR after 2 years, BC after being in the uk for three years.

As you can see the only benefit of the spouse visa is the quicker time to ILR and BC. If this wasn't the case then the fact that we have to apply for this type of visa means we are being discriminated against in comparison to an EU/EEA citizen and spouse who can go for the free and slightly easier option of the EEA family permit.

The only way my husband could come to the UK on an EEA family permit would be if we both moved to another EU country first (my husband having applied for an EEA permit for that country). Then after living there for 6 months exercising our treaty rights we can come to the UK, him on his EEA family permit.

[bbdivo]

BTW bbdivo - are you sure it only takes 2-3 years in Canada and the US to get residence and citizenship??

Yes! I have friends (or their spouses I should say) going through the process in both countries right now.

In Canada you apply for PR as a spouse immediately after you get married (from the spouses home country) this can take anywhere between 6-9 months during which the couple are potentially apart. Once there after 3 years you can apply for Citizenship.

Similar for US, you apply for a spousal visa, on arrival in the US you do an AOS to Green Card Status which again can take up to 6 months to process. Once you have Green Card then its 3 years before you can apply for Citizenship.

[JAJ]

I think 3 years is quite a long time for my husband to wait to get citizenship, other European countries allow citizenship after a year of marriage, when will the UK fall into line with that practice?

Not many countries do that. France is the only one that comes to mind, and even they are increasing the period of marriage required for spouses of French citizens.

Italy, Portugal, Malta and Switzerland are other countries with fairly flexible rules for spouses of citizens.

But in general, three years residence is quite typical for the spouse of a citizen to become a citizen. Germany, the Netherlands, the Republic of Ireland all have a three year residence requirement for the spouse of a citizen.

On the other hand, some countries, such as Norway and Denmark, require longer residence periods.

Answer - never, having in April 2003 upped the length of the spouse visa from 1 to 2 years.

That didn't affect the eligibility period for British citizenship

A proportionately bigger increase than the WP/HSMP ILR. So until a few years ago a spouse could be a citizen in 2 years. Did you hear any complaints from BC's? No, because the majority are not interested in laws that don't affect them.

There has been a three year residence requirement for spouses of British citizens for many years. In the past, the wife (but not the husband) of a British citizen could get British citizenship more easily, but these concessions were phased out between 28 October 1971 and 31 December 1987.

[imagine]

so is an overstayer eligible to get married in UK now?