Huge backlog as EU citizens rush to secure British residency

[Richard W]

4 hours ago, Donutz said:

The Freedom of Movement regulation quite clearly states that no EU national can become an unreasonable burden to the host state.

That's one of the principles.  I believe that being 'genuinely and effectively employed' trumps that, and having attained permanent residence certainly does.

[Khun Han]

8 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Aren't you tired of being incorrect yet? We're talking about right to remain. This is because of TM's nasty tactic of using these people as pawns.

 

I note that you do not express any horror or even alarm at the rise of all this nastiness.

 

I'll tell you what, I don't want any of it. It's shameful and intolerable.

 

More hysteria from Grouse. The usual extreme right nasties are having a day in the sun. Normal people aren't interested. Nothing is on the rise.

[giddyup]

13 hours ago, dunroaming said:

 

Anyone applying for residency (indefinite leave to remain) will be refused if they are receiving benefits.  You really need to think before posting such rubbish

Why was my question rubbish? I don't read anywhere in that article mentions exclusions for welfare recipients. Perhaps you shouldn't adopt such a superior attitude.

[nontabury]

18 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Very few; otherwise they would not be able to remain in the UK let alone apply for PR as one of the requirements is that they are not an unreasonable burden upon the state!

 

 

EU nationals living in the UK, whether they have PR or not, cannot vote in general elections nor referenda.

 

 

They are not applying for British citizenship, they are applying for permanent residence. One of the requirements being that they must have been living and exercising an economic treaty right in the UK for at least 5 years.

 

Once they have held PR for at least 12 months they can then, if they wish to do so and meet all the other requirements, apply for British citizenship.

 

 

PR under the EEA regulations is not the same as ILR, which is issued under the UK immigration rules.

 

Those who entered the UK under the immigration rules are prohibited from claiming any public funds, except those they have paid NICs for, until they have ILR.

 

EEA nationals can claim some public funds, even if they do not yet have PR; but cannot, as I said above, become an unreasonable burden upon the state.

 

  I accept that if they are residents,they are not entittled to vote, the point I was trying to put across( and not very well) , is that if they are granted residency,then they will soon  be eligible for British citizenship, and therefore be able to vote and influence the direction of the country,for good or for bad.

Maybe that is one of the reasons, why the last Cons/lib government increased the residency from 3yrs to 5yrs before foregners could be granted citizenship.

Edited December 2, 2016 by nontabury

[rockingrobin]

11 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

  I accept that if they are residents,they are not entittled to vote, the point I was trying to put across( and not very well) , is that if they are granted residency,then they will soon  be eligible for British citizenship, and therefore be able to vote and influence the direction of the country,for good or for bad.

Maybe that is one of the reasons, why the last Cons/lib government increased the residency from 3yrs to 5yrs before foregners could be granted citizenship.

Being a British citizen is not the sole criteria for UK voting , commonwealth and Irish republican citizens can also qualify

[Richard W]

14 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Being a British citizen is not the sole criteria for UK voting , commonwealth and Irish republican citizens can also qualify

Technically, commonwealth and Irish citizens aren't foreigners!

[Richard W]

22 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Would they then have dual citizenship, one with UK and one with an EU member country?

Once they have had permanent residence (gained by 5 years lawful residence under the EEA Eegulations) for a year and have the document to certify it, they can apply for British citizenship.  Whether they retain their (other) EU citizenship depends on the law of that country.

[dick dasterdly]

It seems quite simple to me (as per an earlier poster....).

 

Those companies employing EU employees should need to provide evidence (for every, single employee) as to how that employee provides necessary skills (as per under the old rules) and should therefore be eligible to work in the UK.

 

That would quickly sort out the cheap employees from those that provide skills.

 

Its really not that difficult.  We had it previously when it was necessary to prove that we had a guaranteed job (when moving to another country), and the same applied to those moving here!

[rockingrobin]

44 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Being a British citizen is not the sole criteria for UK voting , commonwealth and Irish republican citizens can also qualify

 

28 minutes ago, Richard W said:

Technically, commonwealth and Irish citizens aren't foreigners!

Does that include , Indians, malaysians, Botswana,Cameroon, Nigerians

[Mansell]

It is so bloody expensive to live in the UK it baffles me why anybody wants to go there.........it is more expensive than California, but about the same as New York City.

I guess to make the big wages that are being offered. When I last lived in GB in the early 70's I paid 5 pounds a week for a nice furnished apt in Cheltenham, and a good Indian meal ran around 10 shillings or less, and groceries for the two of us was another 5 pounds. Whenever I have returned I am staggered at the costs of everything. But I guess that is progress.....or something!

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, Mansell said:

It is so bloody expensive to live in the UK it baffles me why anybody wants to go there.........it is more expensive than California, but about the same as New York City.

I guess to make the big wages that are being offered. When I last lived in GB in the early 70's I paid 5 pounds a week for a nice furnished apt in Cheltenham, and a good Indian meal ran around 10 shillings or less, and groceries for the two of us was another 5 pounds. Whenever I have returned I am staggered at the costs of everything. But I guess that is progress.....or something!

I know what you mean as after visiting the US I was shocked at how much 'rip off Britain' applied .

 

Edit - Back on topic, those EU citizens working 'cheaply' in the UK need to be sent back home.  But I'd make an exception for Polish plumbers !

Edited December 2, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[petermik]

On 12/1/2016 at 10:37 AM, petermik said:

3M people waiting for UK citizenship? seems crazy to me when those favouring remaining are predicting economic meltdown if we do (hopefully) cast aside the EU parasites.

Maybe they secretly know where their bread is buttered best 

 

On 12/1/2016 at 2:34 PM, Xircal said:

 

Why do you refer to them as parasites? If they're working and contributing to the economy, paying taxes etc., they can hardly be considerd to be parasitic. 

"cast aside the EU parasites" are the beaurocrats employed by the EU in Brussels dictating what is best for the UK,nothing to do with people already residing here

Edited December 2, 2016 by petermik

[7by7]

12 hours ago, Richard W said:

That's one of the principles.  I believe that being 'genuinely and effectively employed' trumps that, and having attained permanent residence certainly does.

 

Obviously if someone is genuinely and effectively employed then they are not going to be a burden upon the state; unless they are committing fraud!

 

Of course, any EEA national who wishes to claim public funds in the UK has to pass the habitually resident test; obviously someone who has lived here for 5 years and achieved PR would be able to do so.

 

For more details on what public funds foreigners, including EEA nationals, can claim in the UK, and how they qualify, see this Parliamentary briefing paper.

[7by7]

3 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

  I accept that if they are residents,they are not entittled to vote, the point I was trying to put across( and not very well) , is that if they are granted residency,then they will soon  be eligible for British citizenship, and therefore be able to vote and influence the direction of the country,for good or for bad.

 

If someone has decided to become British, why should they not be entitled to vote?

 

I very much doubt, though, that gaining that right is a major contributing factor in the decision; it certainly wasn't in my wife's case nor any of our Thai friends who have naturalised. To be honest it was the fact that a British passport allows visa free entry to far more countries than a Thai one which was the main reason. That and the fact that ILR will lapse if the holder spends a continuous period of 2 years or more out of the UK.

 

Quote

In 2015, just under 118,100 foreign citizens naturalised as British citizens..........

.........Only 11% of grants were to EU nationals.
(source)

 

According to the ONS* there were 642,000 live births in England and Wales in 1997 who reached 18 and so became eligible to vote in 2015. Add on births in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the number of EU nationals becoming British each year when compared to British citizens by birth joining the electoral roll because they have reached 18 is insignificant.

 

(*Sorry it's an archived file which I can't link to; but you can easily check.)

 

3 hours ago, nontabury said:

Maybe that is one of the reasons, why the last Cons/lib government increased the residency from 3yrs to 5yrs before foregners could be granted citizenship.

Except that they didn't!

 

For the nearly 17 years in which I have been taking an interest in such matters the residential qualification for naturalisation has not changed. It is:

• Spouse or civil partner of a British citizen; 3 years and hold ILR or the equivalent such as PR.
• All others; 5 years and held ILR or PR for at least 1 year.

What changed in 2012 was the residential period for ILR for family members, which was increased from 2 years (not 3) to 5. Which effectively means that spouses and civil partners of a British citizen now need to have lived in the UK for at least 5 years before they can apply for naturalisation.

 

All others, including EU nationals, need to have lived in the UK for 6 years. Five years to get PR and then held that PR for at least one year. That hasn't changed.

 

Except for family members of British citizens, who are neither a spouse nor civil partner, who if they first entered the UK prior to July 2012 could, and still can, apply for naturalisation after 5 years as they would have gained their ILR after 2 years and so held it for the required 12 months when they satisfied the 5 year requirement. Since July 2012 they, too, need to have lived here for at least 6 years.

 

There is also a requirement to have spent no more than a set maximum time out of the UK during the last 3 or 5 years.

[Xircal]

6 hours ago, petermik said:

 

"cast aside the EU parasites" are the beaurocrats employed by the EU in Brussels dictating what is best for the UK,nothing to do with people already residing here

 

In what way is the EU dictating what is best for Britain?

[Richard W]

11 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

 

Does that include , Indians, malaysians, Botswana,Cameroon, Nigerians

Yes.

[Richard W]

8 hours ago, 7by7 said:

If someone has decided to become British, why should they not be entitled to vote?

Under the 2007 Thai constitution, persons naturalised as Thais had to wait 5 years to vote.

[Richard W]

9 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Obviously if someone is genuinely and effectively employed then they are not going to be a burden upon the state; unless they are committing fraud!

The threshold for work to be genuine and effective is not high.  By Megner and Scheffel (Case C-444/93) , doing as little as 15 hours a week and earning one seventh of the average monthly pay constitutes genuine and effective work.  Moreover, have you not heard of 'in-work  benefits'?

[nontabury]

20 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Obviously if someone is genuinely and effectively employed then they are not going to be a burden upon the state; unless they are committing fraud!

 

Of course, any EEA national who wishes to claim public funds in the UK has to pass the habitually resident test; obviously someone who has lived here for 5 years and achieved PR would be able to do so.

 

For more details on what public funds foreigners, including EEA nationals, can claim in the UK, and how they qualify, see this Parliamentary briefing paper.

 

 Is it not true,that there are certain exemptions, for instance regarding  child benefits. Unless it's recently changed  citizens of Croatia holding a certificate to work,can also abstain this benefit,the same for refugees( not sure if this applies to those who have been classified as genuine refugees ,or if it also includes economic migrants) 

.  These two examples and many more, are able to claim and receive this benefit from day one,unlike the British citizen I was talking to yesterday, who when he returns to live in the UK next year with his British born daughters,will be unable to receive child benefits for them until 3 months after returning. It's these sort of rules that puts people's back up, and unfortunately they tend to blame johnny foregners who are simple taking advantage of the system, rather than putting the blame on those who have allowed this to happen "consecutive British governments".

[nontabury]

23 hours ago, Richard W said:

Technically, commonwealth and Irish citizens aren't foreigners!

 

What do you mean,technically Irish citizens aren't foreigners.

[Richard W]

2 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

What do you mean,technically Irish citizens aren't foreigners.

By law (the Ireland Act 1949), the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country.  A particular consequence is that Irish citizens in the British civil service would not rely on transitional provisions to remain in their posts in the event of a very hard exit.  There might be some civil service posts currently open to the Irish but not the French, but I suspect not.  Most of the privileges of Irish citizens in the UK are granted explicitly to Irish citizens, e.g. the right to vote.

 

[7by7]

15 hours ago, Richard W said:

23 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

If someone has decided to become British, why should they not be entitled to vote?

Under the 2007 Thai constitution, persons naturalised as Thais had to wait 5 years to vote.

 

1) Doesn't answer the question.

 

2) We are talking about the UK, not Thailand.

[7by7]

15 hours ago, Richard W said:

On ‎02‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 11:07 AM, 7by7 said:

Obviously if someone is genuinely and effectively employed then they are not going to be a burden upon the state; unless they are committing fraud!

The threshold for work to be genuine and effective is not high.  By Megner and Scheffel (Case C-444/93) , doing as little as 15 hours a week and earning one seventh of the average monthly pay constitutes genuine and effective work.  Moreover, have you not heard of 'in-work  benefits'?

 Point taken; but the fact still remains that EEA nationals living in another member state cannot become an unreasonable burden upon their host state's welfare system.

 

It is also a fact that, as Donutz pointed out earlier, what non contribution based public funds EEA nationals can claim in their host state is up to the host state, not the EU.

 

 

[7by7]

3 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

 Is it not true,that there are certain exemptions, for instance regarding  child benefits. Unless it's recently changed  citizens of Croatia holding a certificate to work,can also abstain this benefit,the same for refugees( not sure if this applies to those who have been classified as genuine refugees ,or if it also includes economic migrants) 

.  These two examples and many more, are able to claim and receive this benefit from day one,unlike the British citizen I was talking to yesterday, who when he returns to live in the UK next year with his British born daughters,will be unable to receive child benefits for them until 3 months after returning. It's these sort of rules that puts people's back up, and unfortunately they tend to blame johnny foregners who are simple taking advantage of the system, rather than putting the blame on those who have allowed this to happen "consecutive British governments".

 

There are exceptions and variations in the rules on public funds; often to do with reciprocal arrangements between the UK and the other country concerned. As well as the briefing paper I linked to earlier, see Public Funds.

 

Asylum seekers do not get child benefit.

 

They receive £36.95 per week for each member of their household plus an extra £5 per week for any babies under 1 and an extra £3 per week for any children aged between 1 and 3.

 

If their asylum claim is refused the basic amount reduces to £35.39 per week; given on a payment card, not cash, until such time as they are removed.

 

See Asylum support; 2 . What you'll get.

 

But none of this is relevant to EEA nationals.

 

[Richard W]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

1) Doesn't answer the question.

 

2) We are talking about the UK, not Thailand.

The explanation would be the same for the UK and Thailand.  It helps stop a load of recently arrived newcomers taking the country over.  It's related to the logic that stops an immigrant from becoming President of the US - in Thailand, naturalised Thais can't even become MPs.

[nontabury]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

There are exceptions and variations in the rules on public funds; often to do with reciprocal arrangements between the UK and the other country concerned. As well as the briefing paper I linked to earlier, see Public Funds.

 

Asylum seekers do not get child benefit.

 

They receive £36.95 per week for each member of their household plus an extra £5 per week for any babies under 1 and an extra £3 per week for any children aged between 1 and 3.

 

If their asylum claim is refused the basic amount reduces to £35.39 per week; given on a payment card, not cash, until such time as they are removed.

 

See Asylum support; 2 . What you'll get.

 

But none of this is relevant to EEA nationals.

 

 

Look up UK gov.

"who is eligible for child benefits if you move to the UK"

it states that there are about 12 exemptions to the rule,that you must be resident in the UK for 3 months before you can claim child benefits.

one of those exemptions is for refugees. As I previously stated, I don't know if this includes economic migrants.

 

[7by7]

Just now, Richard W said:

The explanation would be the same for the UK and Thailand.  It helps stop a load of recently arrived newcomers taking the country over.  It's related to the logic that stops an immigrant from becoming President of the US - in Thailand, naturalised Thais can't even become MPs.

 

Recently arrived?

 

As you know, it now takes at least 5 years for the spouse or civil partner of a British citizen to be even eligible to apply for British citizenship. For as ;long as I have taken an interest (nearly 17 years) it has always taken at least 6 years for all others!

 

As the figures I quoted earlier show, the number of people naturalising each year is miniscule when compared to the number of British born reaching voting age. I don't see how that small number is going to take over the country!

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

Look up UK gov.

"who is eligible for child benefits if you move to the UK"

it states that there are about 12 exemptions to the rule,that you must be resident in the UK for 3 months before you can claim child benefits.

one of those exemptions is for refugees. As I previously stated, I don't know if this includes economic migrants.

 

 

From Child Benefit if you move to the UK

Quote

Everyone needs to meet the eligibility rules to claim Child Benefit. If you’re moving to the UK from abroad you also need to prove that you:

• have the right to reside in the UK
• live in the UK as your main home - except for short periods, like holidays

 

It is a complex area, so I am not surprised at your confusion; which many share.

 

Asylum seekers  do not have the right to reside in the UK until after their asylum claim has been approved. Once it has been approved they are no longer an asylum seeker, they are now legally a refugee and do have the right to live in the UK.

 

If it is rejected then they do not have the right to reside. One of the reasons for refusing an asylum claim is that the person is an economic migrant, not someone in fear of persecution, or worse, in their home country.

 

The distinction between asylum seekers and refugees (I have deliberately chosen a paper from the anti immigration Migration Watch UK)

[Richard W]

29 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Point taken; but the fact still remains that EEA nationals living in another member state cannot become an unreasonable burden upon their host state's welfare system.

That is partly dealt with by controlling the definition of 'unreasonable'.  For example, your 'fact' is only a fact if permanent residents who become unemployable are considered a 'reasonable' burden.

 

I think there is a reasonable question as to whether uncoordinated welfare systems and in-work benefits are compatible with free movement.  There were free movement problems within the English poor law - assistance could be restricted to those with an established connection to the parish.

[Richard W]

39 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

As the figures I quoted earlier show, the number of people naturalising each year is miniscule when compared to the number of British born reaching voting age. I don't see how that small number is going to take over the country!

118,100 to 642,000 is 18%; that is not minuscule.  However, from http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/naturalisation-as-a-british-citizen-concepts-and-trends/ , only 11% of these, the 2015 total,  were EU nationals.    One should expect a surge now as many EU nationals naturalise as a protective measure rather than because of transferred loyalty.  Several countries have recently allowed their citizens to acquire an additional nationality (e.g. Poland), though sometimes only an additional EU nationality.  Hitherto, there had been little advantage for an EU national to naturalise a British.

 

The number of grants in the year to March 2016 is 134,659.  The 2015 number of grants is lower than usual, partly because of an increase in the time taken to process applications - there may be a backlog that distorts the 2016 numbers, on top of the effect of the Brexit vote.