New British citizenship rules for immigrants

Jacqui Smith told MPs migrants would be refused full access to benefits and public services until they complete a probationary citizenship phase


The Path to Citizenship green paper, published today, outlines a new route to citizenship based on earning the right to become British by meeting a number of requirements

Under the proposals there would be three routes to citizenship and three stages to every journey.

The three routes to citizenship are:

1. Economic migrants: highly skilled and skilled workers (as stipulated under the new points-based system which goes live at the end of this month)

2. Family members of British residents and permanent residents

3. Those in need of protection (refugees and those granted humanitarian protection)

To achieve citizenship, a time-limited probationary citizenship period will be introduced for the first time. The three stages to citizenship will now be: temporary residence, probationary citizenship, then British citizenship or permanent residence

To secure citizenship, applicants will need to fulfil a number of requirements. These include: speaking English, paying tax and becoming self-sufficient, obeying the law, and demonstrating integration into British life by "playing an active part in the community"

Those who have been to prison will be barred from accessing probationary citizenship, while migrants who have committed minor offences will be penalised by having their progress on the citizenship route slowed down

Due to growing public concern about the impact on local services caused by migration, newcomers will see certain fees for immigration applications increased

The amount will vary, with migrants who tend to consume more in public services – such as those with children and elderly relatives – paying more

The fund will be used to pass limited amounts of money "quickly and responsively" to local services to alleviate some of the short-term pressures resulting from migration

Although the proposed reforms do not affect the rights of European Economic Area (EEA) nationals, the green paper outlines plans to set up two cross-departmental teams to look at the issue of EEAs

One will concentrate on work that needs to be done with other member states to improve the integration, including language skills, of EEA nationals

The other will look at ensuring EEA migration works to the benefit of all EU member states and that EEA migrants are able to contribute "fully" to society

The green paper also outlines the need to simplify immigration law to make it "fit for the 21st century" and render the decision-making process more efficient

Key provisions on the management of migration and border controls will be set out in a single piece of legislation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/20/immigrat...npolicy.immigration1

New citizenship rules for immigrants


Migrants will have to earn the right to become British citizens under a new deal outlined today by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith

Under the proposals, outlined in a green paper published today, a limited number of migrant categories would be granted the status of probationary citizens for a set period in which they could earn full citizenship or permanent residence

Full access to benefits - such as jobseeker's allowance and income support – would no longer be granted to some migrant categories until after the immigrants had been in the UK for five years

Applicants would instead have to wait until they had completed their probationary period

Attempting to allay public concerns about the impact of migration on public services, Smith said that the new scheme would ensure that the rights of British citizenship "are matched by the responsibilities and contributions we expect of newcomers to the UK"

Smith said that Britain was a "tolerant and fair country" but expressed the need for carefully managed migration

She told MPs that migrants would be refused full access to benefits and public services until they had completed a "probationary citizenship phase"

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said the imposition of a small premium on top of immigration fees would "barely scratch the surface" of the full cost to taxpayers. "It is, in short, a gimmick."

It was, he said, a "complicated and bureaucratic solution" when a simpler option would have been to put a limit on the number of immigrants allowed in to the UK

Tom Brake, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, said that the proposals would make immigrants "scapegoats" for government failures

"The government's chronic mismanagement of the immigration system has shattered public confidence and left public services in some parts of the country severely overstretched," he said.

"Their solution appears to be to heap further charges on working migrants, who already fund public services like everyone else through the taxes they pay. What kind of first step to citizenship is it to ask new people to pay more for public services in a country where we're all allegedly equal?"

The prime minister defended the moves: "Citizenship is not an abstract concept, or just access to a passport. I believe it is – and must be seen as – founded on shared values that define the character of our country."

These values were founded on a vision of citizenship that entailed both responsibilities and rights and it was on this basis that the government was advancing the concept of "earned citizenship", he said

"In the future, the aspiring citizen should know and subscribe to a clear statement of British values, proceeding toward a citizenship explicitly founded not just on what they receive from our society but what they owe to it."

Smith told MPs that the government proposed to defer full access to benefits and services until migrants had "successfully completed the probationary citizenship phase, so that they are expected to contribute economically and support themselves and their dependants until such time as they become British citizens or permanent residents"

Where human rights laws prevented someone with a criminal record from being removed from Britain, the individual would have to serve five years' probationary citizenship, according to the green paper

"If people won't play by the rules in this country their journey to citizenship should be halted or slowed down," said Smith

Minor offenders could have to serve three years' probationary citizenship, and extra time could also be imposed on applicants who had been convicted of violent, drug-related or sexual offences

Parents whose children committed crime could be barred from citizenship or permanent residence in the UK, the document suggested

A new fund financed by a surcharge on immigration applications will be set up to give cash to areas of the country which experience problems due to immigration - such as over-subscribed schools

The fund is expected to raise tens of millions of pounds a year

Higher levies will be imposed on groups such as children and elderly people who use more public services

Smith said that there were new moves to review how European nationals in Britain were able to claim some benefits in the UK

The government will set up a cross-departmental unit to look at access to benefits for European Economic Area nationals

A bill based on today's proposals is due this summer with full legislation expected in November

Changes will apply to new arrivals after the new laws are passed, and not to foreigners already living in the UK, so reforms are only likely to affect migrants arriving from 2010

In a comment that appeared to preempt the results of a consultation exercise being run by the Home Office, the prime minister said that foreigners who planned to marry British citizens and settle in the UK would have to pass an English test

"We will introduce a new English language requirement for those applying for a marriage visa and planning to settle in the UK - both as part of our determination that everyone who comes here to live should be able to speak English and to make sure that they cannot be exploited," Brown said

Earning citizenship


Migrants contribute a great deal to the UK, but the government's green paper will provide new clarity and incentives on their status






Liam Byrne


February 20, 2008 2:00 PM

The Guardian

If you're ever worried about a decline of interest in politics, start a debate about immigration. It does not matter where you are: at the school gate, down the pub, in a church, mosque or a temple your audience will become animated

But we can win the argument about the positive benefits of controlled immigration if we get three things right

First, we must never undersell the benefits migration has delivered for Britain. The numbers frankly speak for themselves

The Treasury believes migration added £6bn to national output in 2006. The IPPR reckons migrants pay more in tax than they take out in benefits and services. The Low Pay Commission recently reported that a 1% increase in migrants, as a share of the working age population, led to a 0.4% increase in average native wages

What's more, migration is good for the long-term productivity of the economy - and that means wages - because over the long term, we know there is almost a one-to-one relationship between the growth in productivity and the growth in wages

But the public needs to be convinced of two more things; that the migration system is strong, and that the immigration deal is fair

That is why we have introduced such a sweeping set of changes to our border security and immigration system

We need to control legal migration with a points system like the Australians. We need to attack the causes of illegal migration with tougher sanctions on illegal working. And we need to make decisions faster and treat children and victims of trafficking with greater sensitivity and care

But people want a clearer sense that coming to Britain is not a free ride. That's why we have to make sure that newcomers not only earn their way, but earn their stay

We need to put our values at the heart of this new programme of reform that changes the way newcomers become citizens. In a sense this is the unfinished business of migration reform. I thought this would be an extremely difficult thing to achieve. But after travelling all over Britain talking to people about just what are the values we want newcomers to sign up to, change is more clear-cut than I thought

British people are actually pretty comfortable with difference and diversity. We do not want newcomers to jump through lots of hoops, or be something that they are not. We are not a nation of Alf Garnetts

Indeed, in debate after debate from Aberdeen to Plymouth, from Cardiff to Croyden, what I heard the British public saying is that they want newcomers to acquire a command of English, work hard and pay tax, obey parliament's law and make an effort to integrate. Beyond that, it should be live and let live

So, our green paper this week proposes some big changes - a new stage of probationary citizenship. A much clearer relationship between the rights and benefits that we grant newcomers and what we ask in return. A clearer "ask" about what needs to be achieved (like speaking better English) to move on towards citizenship
And incentives to get involved in the community. I hope it provokes debate. But crucially, I think it sets a different tone in the migration debate and clears the ground for a much clearer case about the benefits of immigration

This is of course a wider argument here. These reforms are one more contribution to a much wider agenda designed to strengthen some of the shared values we have in Britain today

We need to find new ways - not just old ways - of celebrating and strengthening the values we have in common. That's how we build a country that remains comfortable with the diversity that makes modern life so rich

Immigrants face stronger British citizenship process



Independent.co.uk

By David Barrett
Wednesday, 20 February 2008

The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she wanted to end the situation where foreign nationals "languish in limbo" by living here but not adapting to the British way of life

Even the ultra-wealthy - who can currently avoid some of the conditions imposed on less well-off immigrants - will be expected to apply for British nationality or permanent residence

"I would want to see a larger proportion of those that are here moving to full British citizenship," said Ms Smith

"You will not be able to languish in limbo. Once your period of temporary residence comes to an end you will need to apply for the next stage or leave."

Winning citizenship will take at least six years from the point someone arrives in the UK, a year longer than at present because of a new stage of "probationary citizenship"

The probation period will last 12 months if the foreigner takes part in community activities such as volunteering, charity fund-raising, running a sports team or playgroup, or working as a school governor
Migrants who do not take part in community work will have to wait longer - the existing five years plus a minimum of three years' probation

This type of community work may even be made compulsory, said a Green Paper published today

The rules will not apply to Europeans - including those from the eastern European countries which recently joined the EU
But Ms Smith also announced a new review of access to welfare payments, such as child benefit, by people from other European Economic Area countries

Immigration minister Liam Byrne said current take-up rates for British citizenship were low among certain foreigners - such as Filipinos (50 per cent), Australians (49 per cent) and Americans (40 per cent)

"There are some residents from some parts of the world who are languishing in limbo for some considerable period of time," he said

Ms Smith went on: "I don't think it is a good thing to have people who are permanently living here but have not taken that step towards permanent citizenship."

Full access to benefits - such as jobseeker's allowance and income support - will no longer be granted after a person has been in the UK for five yearsApplicants will instead have to wait until they have completed their probationary period

New conditions will be introduced on winning British citizenship, such as an emphasis on being law-abiding

Migrants who have served a prison sentence would be barred from citizenship and could be removed from the country, the Green Paper said If human rights laws prevented someone with a criminal record from being removed from Britain, they would have to serve five years' probationary citizenship, it added

Minor offenders could have to serve three years' probationary citizenship, and extra time could also be imposed on applicants who had been convicted of violent, drug or sex offences

Parents whose children commit crime could be barred from citizenship or permanent residence in the UK, the document suggested
"If people won't play by the rules in this country their journey to citizenship should be halted or slowed down," said Ms Smith

A new fund financed by a surcharge on immigration applications will be set up to give cash to areas of the country which experience problems due to immigration - such as over-subscribed schools

The fund is expected to raise tens of millions of pounds a year

Higher levies will be imposed on groups such as children and elderly people who use more public services

Ms Smith said there were new moves to review how European nationals in Britain are able to claim some benefits in the UK "We will be setting up a cross-departmental unit to look at access to benefits for European Economic Area nationals," she said

Asked if it would examine hand-outs such as child benefit - which is currently paid to 69,000 children whose eastern European parents joined the EU in 2004 - Ms Smith said: "Yes, it's those type of issues

"We know there are very many of our European partners who want to see a benefits system that works in a larger Europe and in the context which we now have."

A draft Bill based on today's proposals is due this summer with full legislation expected in November

Changes will apply to new arrivals after the new laws are passed, and not to foreigners already living in the UK, so reforms are only likely to affect migrants arriving from 2010

Migrants to earn citizenship during probationary period


Alan Travis

The Guardian, Thursday February 21 2008


A new immigration status of "probationary citizen" lasting from one to three years is to be introduced by ministers as part of a system of "earned citizenship" to encourage more non-EU migrants who settle in Britain to apply for a UK passport

The time new migrants spend as probationary citizens will depend on whether they "earn their stay in Britain", with those who undertake voluntary work speeding their progress, while those convicted of minor crimes will have their applications delayed. Access to benefits and council housing will also be delayed until migrants have completed their probationary period. Details of the citizenship plan were published as Gordon Brown announced that the government is to go ahead with compulsory pre-arrival English language tests for foreign nationals who want to marry British citizens and settle in the UK

At present a skilled economic migrant can apply for citizenship after five years - two years for those who come to join a family member. While about 150,000 people a year successfully apply for a British passport, there is no compulsion to do so and about 100,000 with indefinite leave to remain in Britain retain their original citizenship. A Home Office green paper, The Path to Citizenship, published yesterday, says newcomers will be classed as temporary residents for two to five years before becoming probationary citizens for a minimum of one year and a maximum of three years, depending on their behaviour

This will ultimately lead to most of those who "play by the rules" becoming a British citizen within six years - a year longer than at present - or remaining a permanent foreign resident, a process that will now take at least eight years, or being asked to leave the country if their citizenship application fails. Those who have committed an imprisonable offence will be automatically barred from British citizenship. "Earned citizenship" is in addition to the present requirements to pass tests in speaking English and knowledge of life in the UK

The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said the proposed changes were part of a wider package of immigration reform which would see an Australian-style points-based immigration system introduced next month: "This is a comprehensive package of measures to strengthen our immigration system and reinforce our shared values. It will deliver a clear journey to British citizenship which balances rights and benefits with responsibilities and contributions."

The green paper, which is expected to lead to legislation in November, caused disquiet among Labour MPs when the proposals were unveiled in the Commons

The former Home Office minister Fiona Mactaggart, MP for Slough, warned that the proposals would damage race relations: "One of the reasons we have such excellent race relations in Britain is because migrants to this country relatively quickly achieve permanent residence, unlike other countries in Europe," she said. The Conservatives' home affairs spokesman, David Davis, said the minimum probationary period should be five years rather than 12 months

Immoral earnings



The government's new proposals to make immigrants 'earn' their citizenship are purely designed to appease knee-jerk xenophobia




Philippe Legrain



February 20, 2008 8:30 PM

The Guardian

What proportion of women with children (of school age) are in paid work? Is it: a) half; b) one quarter; c) three quarters; or d) two thirds?

Stumped? Try this one. How many children are estimated to be working in the United Kingdom? Is it: a) 8 million; b) 5 million; c) 1 million; or d) 2 million

I challenge Gordon Brown, Jacqui Smith or Liam Byrne to answer correctly (without prior briefing) either question - or the many others on which prospective British citizens are tested. Journalists who attend the prime minister's televised monthly press conference should spring questions from the "Life in the UK test" on him. No doubt, the self-styled definer of all things British could not pass his own Britishness test. I'd be astonished if many people whose ancestry here stretches back to 1066 - or even to Cheddar Man - could answer such questions correctly. And why on earth should a British citizen be required to know?

The Britishness test is part of a much broader package that the government, in its mad rush to appease the moral panic about immigration stirred up by the likes of the Daily Mail, is implementing to define and defend Britishness from the onslaught of dastardly foreigners who actually want - how dare they! - to contribute to this country and feel that they belong

While the government's decision to allow the Poles and other new EU citizens to come work here freely was brave and right - and is an important reason why Gordon Brown can boast to have overseen Britain's longest-ever economic boom - it has since produced one idiotic, knee-jerk, xenophobic immigration-policy initiative after another. Take the proposed ID cards for foreigners. They are not just discriminatory, but absurd: if someone claims to be British, and therefore does not (yet) require ID, how on earth is a relevant official meant to determine whether they need to show some?

Then, there is the government's pride and joy: the new skills-based points system, which is being phased in from the end of this month. This involves officials from the department deemed "not fit for purpose" by Jacqui Smith's predecessor trying to divine how foreigners will contribute to Britain in future and slams the door on low-skilled migrants from developing countries: the equivalent of a new 11-plus exam for vetting immigrants. There goes Britain's chance of admitting the father of a future Barack Obama. Surely a Labour government that purports to believe in opportunity for all should realise that you can't - and shouldn't - determine people's life chances based on their background

And now we have "earned citizenship" - another misguided aptitude test. That the proposals were leaked to the Neanderthal Daily Telegraph tells you everything you need to know about the government's intentions. Since only a green paper has been published, the details of the proposals will doubtless change considerably. But the government's thinking is clear

"Citizenship is not an abstract concept, or just access to a passport. I believe it is - and must be seen as - founded on shared values that define the character of our country," Gordon Brown said today. "I stand for a British way of life where we, the people, are protected from crime, but in return we obey the law, and where we, the people, expect and receive services, but in return pay our fair share in taxes and have the obligation and gain the skills for work where we can."

Now that may superficially seem fine - even banal; after all, who favours a way of life where people are not protected from crime, don't obey the law, don't work, don't pay their fair share of taxes and don't receive public services in return? But think again: what exactly are the "shared values" that, Brown claims, distinguish British people from others? This is not an abstract debate: the government seeks to prescribe these values. "In the future, the aspiring citizen should know and subscribe to a clear statement of British values," Brown said

But if immigrants are to conform to British values, should they model themselves on Jade Goody or Trevor MacDonald, Melanie Phillips or Boy George, Margaret Thatcher or George Monbiot? Britain is inescapably - and wonderfully - diverse, not just thanks to recent immigration, but because human beings are all different, and because people are freer to express their differences since the liberating 1960s. This is something to celebrate, not stifle. Moreover, irrespective of immigration, in our globalising world of foreign holidays, Facebook and fusion food, the bonds of nationality are inexorably loosening. Is that so terrible?

Increasingly, we all have multiple, overlapping and increasing self-defined identities: a British citizen may also identify as a European, a Christian, of Irish origin, a Londoner, a student, a trainee doctor, a woman, a mother, a wife, a supporter of gay rights, an environmentalist and, above all, an individual. And if society is broad enough to include nuns and transsexuals, Marxists and libertarians, radical environmentalists and oil executives, surely it can embrace immigrants, too? After all, we don't all need to be alike in order to live together. We just need to respect the basic principles on which our societies are based, such as freedom within the law, equality before the law and tolerance of differences

Contrary to what Brown might think, these are not "British values": they are liberal ones. They are shared by many non-Britons, and rejected by some Britons, Islamist bigots, for instance, as well as the BNP. And while people cannot be forced to believe in them, they can be required to respect the law: even those who believe that women are not equal to men must treat them as such

Now, if integration means anything - and often, when ministers use the word, they appear to have no clear idea what they mean by it - it is a two-way street. If people are expected to fit in, they have to be treated equally and made to feel welcome. Liam Byrne's stated mantra is: "Treat everyone the same: just make sure no one's dodging their dues." But treat migrants the same is precisely what the new earned-citizenship proposals do not do

Byrne recently said that newcomers should "speak the language, obey the law and pay their taxes like the rest of us". Certainly, it makes sense for immigrants to learn English, but why the need to require it? It is astonishing that the birthplace of the world's language of choice should display such linguistic insecurity. And the implication that migrants - whatever their citizenship status - don't tend to obey the law or pay their taxes is pure malice

Ministers speak as if aspiring British citizens are potential benefit-cheats and criminals, rather then overwhelmingly decent, hard-working and law-abiding people who already make - and want to continue to make - a big contribution to British society. That is xenophobic prejudice - and hardly conducive to fostering the sense of Britishness that the government claims to aspire to

David Goodhart

The Observer, Sunday February 24 2008

Last week's green paper on immigration and citizenship used a rhetoric that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, talked about 'earned citizenship' and restricting certain welfare benefits to those who have achieved full citizenship, after at least six years 'on probation'. This is the same government that has overseen the biggest-ever migration into Britain and has been more positive about minority rights, multiculturalism and an 'open Britain' than any in our history. Grasping this apparent conflict requires an understanding of the learning curve of the liberal, baby-boom generation

Most of today's cabinet were students in the 1970s and 1980s. If their student union had been debating the motion 'The nation-state is a bloodstained anachronism', most of them would probably have voted for it. And why not? I was there too and we were growing up in the shadow of nationalism's 20th-century horrors. Indeed, we liberal baby-boomers were children of a historic shift in Western political attitudes in which the ancient ideal of the moral equality of all humans came to be enshrined in both national and international law, most famously in the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Only 30 years before, a proposal that a clause on racial equality be included in the covenant of the League of Nations was rejected by all the major Western powers. Yet by the 1950s, after two world wars and the Holocaust, nationalism, at least in the West, had been partly discredited and the legitimacy of racial and even social hierarchies was shattered. For the first time, the idea of equal citizenship, both within and between countries, began to become a reality; indeed, it was one of the driving forces behind the generational upheaval of the 1960s

In Britain, this idea of equality easily overlapped with a belief in a world without borders. Unlike 'year zero' nation states such as France and the US, Britain (England even more) always had a fuzzy sense of itself. And growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, the most coherent story about the nation was being told by people (from Monty Python to the Marxists) who disdained it. People on the left felt comfortable with the fuzziness and were pro-mass immigration - among other things it added colour to the staid stoicism of Anglo-Saxon life. Meanwhile, a broader political world view emerged - there was no common culture in Britain, but, rather, a multicultural ethnic rainbow

Some variation on this view was embraced by most members of the current cabinet as students and young politicians. Which is why it is all the more remarkable that in the past eight years, Labour has created a new system of British national citizenship - from citizenship ceremonies to language tests and citizenship in schools, to last week's green paper introducing 'earned' citizenship

Even in 1997, when Labour won power, this sort of language would have been taboo. Having conceded much of the economic argument to the right, a large part of Labour's appeal was that it was in tune with a multicultural Britain

So why has Labour re-embraced borders? Why can Immigration Minister Liam Byrne accept that immigration might be too high, when five years ago even the populist David Blunkett apparently refused to contemplate any limit at all? Why is much of the liberal baby-boomer world view now in retreat across Europe? The fact is that the liberal baby-boomers were too insouciant about the nation-state and feelings of mutual obligation and belonging. Events, and voters' responses to them, forced them to adjust. In Britain, those events included the asylum crisis in the late 1990s, the unprecedented increase in legal immigration, the unexpected East European surge after May 2004, the 7 July London attacks and, most important, the hostility of public opinion to mass immigration amid anxieties about public services and rapidly changing communities

This does not mean that the average British citizen has become more prejudiced, though the far right gets more votes than ever. The principle of anti-discrimination is now more widely practised than ever - remember the furore over Big Brother's Jade? And the average Briton is more comfortable with difference - consider the rise of interracial marriage. But the liberal baby-boomers have come to grasp that a belief in universal moral equality does not mean that we have the same obligations to all humans - we do not consider our families to be on a different moral plane, yet would not hesitate to put their interests first. Until a few decades ago, the basis of national 'specialness' would have been ethnicity - shared ancestry, history, sacrifice. In multi-ethnic and multiracial societies, the basis of specialness is citizenship itself

The justification for giving priority to the interests of fellow citizens boils down to a pragmatic claim about the value of the nation-state. Without fellow-citizen favouritism, the nation-state ceases to have much meaning. And most of the things that liberals desire - democracy, redistribution, welfare states, human rights - only work when one can assume the shared norms and solidarities of national communities

Labour has shed its baby-boomer inhibitions and come to accept that the interests of existing citizens (of all colours and creeds) must come first, including on the issue of immigration. But the reflexes of anti-national liberals remain influential; consider the Human Rights Act which, in certain key areas, confers the rights of citizenship on non-citizens, or the recent NHS doctors recruitment fiasco in which, at least initially, no preference was given to British citizens

Even now, one can sense a certain nervousness when senior Labour figures talk about borders and limits. Indeed, the criticism of the green paper from the Tories is that there is not a word on limiting absolute numbers. Yet others point out that we have built our economy around the idea of a talent 'hub', based on internationally mobile sectors such as financial services and the creative industries, and if we now make it harder for people to come and go, we will damage our economic prospects

So the government may not have got it completely right, but at least Labour has shed its naive universalism and accepted the harsh-sounding but obvious truth that for citizenship to be meaningful, it must exclude as well as include

David Goodhart is editor of Prospect magazine
prospect-magazine.co.uk