Huge backlog as EU citizens rush to secure British residency

[7by7]

46 minutes ago, Richard W said:

118,100 to 642,000 is 18%; that is not minuscule. 

 

You have chosen to ignore that, as I said, the 1999 figure for births I used are only for England and Wales and do not include Scotland and Northern Ireland.

 

Plus, of course, the fact that Irish and Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK have the same voting rights as British citizens.

 

Both facts, of course, will reduce your percentage figure considerably.

 

You have also completely ignored the fact that spouses and civil partners of British citizens need to have lived in the UK for at least 5 years and everyone else at least 6 years before they can even begin the process of naturalisation. This demonstrates some form of commitment to the UK; even if it is only family

 

You may be right; EEA nationals may, if/when they qualify, be applying for British citizenship in order to safeguard their life in the UK post Brexit.

 

But  any upsurge in in applications for and grants of British citizenship to EEA nationals will have little effect on Brexit. Even if it's not all done and dusted by 2020 we will be too far down that road for it to be reversed.

 

On other matters; these people come from different backgrounds, have different political views and allegiances. They are not going to all vote the same way.

 

Frankly, Richard, I find your fear that people, especially EEA nationals, who naturalise and so gain the franchise to be a threat to our democracy ludicrous.

[3NUMBAS]

Labour needs them as voters as they're in freefall and unlikely to be in power again unless they can bag a few million peasants from eastern Europe as new labour voters

[Richard W]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

You have chosen to ignore that, as I said, the 1999 figure for births I used are only for England and Wales and do not include Scotland and Northern Ireland.

 

Plus, of course, the fact that Irish and Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK have the same voting rights as British citizens.

 

Both facts, of course, will reduce your percentage figure considerably.

Not to a minuscule proportion, and it is a shame that you cannot grasp the arithmetic fact.  The Irish and Commonwealth citizens should already be represented in the birth rate.  Perhaps you should get some more relevant numbers rather than just comparing the annual number of naturalisations.  For example, the c. 12,000 naturalisation of EU citizens in 2015 is small compared to the natural recruitment of citizens (and other voters) by birth, to which you can add the rather large number of commonwealth citizens arriving as immigrants.  Commonwealth immigrants gain no new voting rights by naturalising.

 

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

You have also completely ignored the fact that spouses and civil partners of British citizens need to have lived in the UK for at least 5 years and everyone else at least 6 years before they can even begin the process of naturalisation. This demonstrates some form of commitment to the UK; even if it is only family

That is well under a generation.  How many generations do you think it takes for incomers to cease to be incomers?

 

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

But  any upsurge in in applications for and grants of British citizenship to EEA nationals will have little effect on Brexit. Even if it's not all done and dusted by 2020 we will be too far down that road for it to be reversed.

 

On other matters; these people come from different backgrounds, have different political views and allegiances. They are not going to all vote the same way.

There may well be a relevant general election before 2020.  There's the crunch if it becomes clear that we will lose access to the single market, there'll be the vote on invoking Article 50, and there's also the possibility that the process can be reversed before we actually leave.

 

I suspect continentals will overwhelmingly vote to remain in the EU.  Do you expect many to have gone thoroughly native?  

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Frankly, Richard, I find your fear that people, especially EEA nationals, who naturalise and so gain the franchise to be a threat to our democracy ludicrous.

You were unaware of any reason for denying the newly naturalised the vote.  Xenophobia, not necessarily unreasoned, is the obvious and widespread reason.  I wasn't expressing my fear.

 

Now as to the fear you deduced, well such a worry may have some validity.  However, most eastern Europeans have been free from totalitarian rule for a generation, and other threats to our freedom are far more significant.

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, Richard W said:

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.

 

Are you saying that 89% are not EU nationals? How's Brexit going to fix that? I don't understand.....

[Richard W]

43 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Are you saying that 89% are not EU nationals? How's Brexit going to fix that? I don't understand.....

The uncertainty about what will happen after Brexit gives resident EU nationals an incentive to naturalise.  It may increase the number of people available for jury service.

 

Part of the administrative problem may be that there are sites advising those who have achieved permanent residence (PR) to get documents to prove it, just in case the UK makes a distinction between those issued with such a document and those not issued with it.  Additionally, getting the document became necessary  last year for people wishing to naturalise on the basis of having achieved PR.

 

Another possible reason is that there is now a legal risk in employing non-Croatian EEA nationals part time.  An employer runs the risk of prosecution if he employs an EEA national one evening a week and has no reason to believe that the EEA national has a right to be in the UK.  Until this year, it was enough to record the evidence that the EEA national was an EEA national.  Now the employer can be imprisoned if the employee has no right to be in the UK - working one evening a week does not give an EEA national the right to reside in the UK, and the employer cannot argue that he didn't know the employee had no right to be in the UK.  Instead he must argue that he did not have reason to believe the employee had no right to be in the UK.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Richard W said:

The uncertainty about what will happen after Brexit gives resident EU nationals an incentive to naturalise.  It may increase the number of people available for jury service.

 

Part of the administrative problem may be that there are sites advising those who have achieved permanent residence (PR) to get documents to prove it, just in case the UK makes a distinction between those issued with such a document and those not issued with it.  Additionally, getting the document became necessary  last year for people wishing to naturalise on the basis of having achieved PR.

 

Another possible reason is that there is now a legal risk in employing non-Croatian EEA nationals part time.  An employer runs the risk of prosecution if he employs an EEA national one evening a week and has no reason to believe that the EEA national has a right to be in the UK.  Until this year, it was enough to record the evidence that the EEA national was an EEA national.  Now the employer can be imprisoned if the employee has no right to be in the UK - working one evening a week does not give an EEA national the right to reside in the UK, and the employer cannot argue that he didn't know the employee had no right to be in the UK.  Instead he must argue that he did not have reason to believe the employee had no right to be in the UK.

 

Fascinating insight! Thanks

[7by7]

18 hours ago, Richard W said:

Not to a minuscule proportion, and it is a shame that you cannot grasp the arithmetic fact.  The Irish and Commonwealth citizens should already be represented in the birth rate.  Perhaps you should get some more relevant numbers rather than just comparing the annual number of naturalisations.  For example, the c. 12,000 naturalisation of EU citizens in 2015 is small compared to the natural recruitment of citizens (and other voters) by birth, to which you can add the rather large number of commonwealth citizens arriving as immigrants.  Commonwealth immigrants gain no new voting rights by naturalising.

 

You are now using my argument to 'prove' me wrong!

[Richard W]

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

You are now using my argument to 'prove' me wrong!

Because you referred to the 'two numbers' you had provided when you actually meant 'three numbers'.  The stripping out of quotes from quotes makes serious discussion more difficult.  (I have wondered if there is a policy to discourage serious discussion.)

 

As it is, we simply don't know how many EEA nationals are naturalising.  There is a new and significant incentive to naturalise.  If we assume a backlog of 100,000 PRC/DCPR applications and 6 months to process (but it may be 6 months of PRC (for non-EEA) and 3 months for DCPR (for EEA)), that implies a limit of 200,000 naturalisation applications a year.  It has been estimated that it will take many years to process all the EEA residents' applications for permanent residence.  Of course, extra staff could be being deployed to process the straightforward cases within the 6-month time limit.

[PattayaBoy]

The big issue is are the other 27 EU countries going to give the right to live and work for UK passport holders in their countries. They seem reluctant to say but appear to think that we should. (Or is it just some of our politicians who feel we should give assurances even if no one else does. ) Having said that I accept it is unsettling for all those in this situation but with fair play all round there should not be a problem.

There is a huge spike requests for citizenship in Poland right now.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Laughing Gravy]

Yes lets get a British passport where we can get free schooling, free hospital care, free legal assistance, free benefits and we can play the racist card and get an even bigger house. We are used to living in a crap, totalitarian state with no rights or voice, so what we will do is work on the weak and liberal UK and get as much as we can. We will force our cultures, language and religions on them and if they complain, we will claim that our human rights are being protested. We will insist on our own religion to be practiced and then if the UK people start complaining or showing their own religion we will call them bigots and racists.

 

Yes no wonder these 3 million want to get in and jump on the gravy train. The saddest part of this is that there are idiotic people in the UK, who want them there whom are from the lefty and luvvy brigade. I would say to anyone go and live in these countries first and see if your opinion changes.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[7by7]

I have read the above post several times now, yet still cannot find a trace of reality within it; only ignorant prejudice.

 

For example

8 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

We will force our cultures, language and religions on them and if they complain, we will claim that our human rights are being protested (sic). We will insist on our own religion to be practiced and then if the UK people start complaining or showing their own religion we will call them bigots and racists.

ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of EU nationals in the UK can speak English, they wouldn't get much work if they didn't, have a very similar culture to us and basically the same religion; Christianity. Though many tend to be Catholic rather than Protestant I haven't seen any instances of them forcing Catholicism upon Protestants!

 

 

 

[Grouse]

9 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Yes lets get a British passport where we can get free schooling, free hospital care, free legal assistance, free benefits and we can play the racist card and get an even bigger house. We are used to living in a crap, totalitarian state with no rights or voice, so what we will do is work on the weak and liberal UK and get as much as we can. We will force our cultures, language and religions on them and if they complain, we will claim that our human rights are being protested. We will insist on our own religion to be practiced and then if the UK people start complaining or showing their own religion we will call them bigots and racists.

 

Yes no wonder these 3 million want to get in and jump on the gravy train. The saddest part of this is that there are idiotic people in the UK, who want them there whom are from the lefty and luvvy brigade. I would say to anyone go and live in these countries first and see if your opinion changes.

 

I thought we were discussing EU migration. Which totalitarian states? I suspect your Gravy train is going nowhere ?

[Richard W]

47 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I thought we were discussing EU migration. Which totalitarian states?

Obviously the former Sino-Soviet block countries.  However, while that may apply to their populations as a whole, I believe the Eastern European immigrants will in general be much younger, and thus have less actual experience of totalitarian rule.  Unfortunately, I have no demographic profiles to back up my feeling.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 01/12/2016 at 5:11 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

There is no "residency". They are seemingly are applying for indefinite leave to remain not British Citizenship. As an EU national they didn't need that before.

 

The issue is that the EU and EC will not discuss the rights of British nationals to still live and work in the EU. They see that as cherry picking and want only to negotiate on anything after article 50 is triggered. Much is reported about the labor party worrying about all these EU nationals and their rights (and I'm not against them) but don't seem to give a toss about British citizens living in the EU (typical labor focus).

Okay, if they're going to say to all those EU nationals "yes, you can carry on applying for a permit that lets you live in Britain permanently". And they're going to say that to all EU nationals, up to the two years after Article 50 has been triggered.

And if they're going to say "And all British people living in the EU can carry on staying in the EU".

And if there's going to be free trade between Britain and the EU. This is something that most Brexiters actually want, by the way.

Well, if they do actually do all this. Well, what's the point of doing a Brexit ?
 

[Grouse]

16 minutes ago, Richard W said:

Obviously the former Sino-Soviet block countries.  However, while that may apply to their populations as a whole, I believe the Eastern European immigrants will in general be much younger, and thus have less actual experience of totalitarian rule.  Unfortunately, I have no demographic profiles to back up my feeling.

 

Sino-Soviet? 

 

Mongolia?

 

Goodness me, I had no idea...

[Richard W]

7 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Sino-Soviet? 

 

Mongolia?

 

Goodness me, I had no idea...

You must be younger than I thought.  Slovenia and Croatia (as part of Yugoslavia); the Czech Republic and Slovakia (as Czechoslovakia); Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria; and Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (as part of the USSR) were all part of the Sino-Soviet block.

[Grouse]

21 minutes ago, Richard W said:

You must be younger than I thought.  Slovenia and Croatia (as part of Yugoslavia); the Czech Republic and Slovakia (as Czechoslovakia); Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria; and Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (as part of the USSR) were all part of the Sino-Soviet block.

Warsaw Pact? soviet block?

 

but Sino-soviet? Poland?

 

enlighten me!

[Richard W]

11 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Warsaw Pact? soviet block?

 

but Sino-soviet? Poland?

 

enlighten me!

MI5 contended that a Sino-Soviet bloc including Yugoslavia and China as well as the Warsaw Pact continued to exist, despite appearances to the contrary.

[Grouse]

5 minutes ago, Richard W said:

MI5 contended that a Sino-Soviet bloc including Yugoslavia and China as well as the Warsaw Pact continued to exist, despite appearances to the contrary.

Ah! I see

 

Pint of absinthe anyone?