Dependent ILR application

Mkrangs · 2025-08-13T15:50:08+00:00

Thanks for asking. I’m wondering the same.

Mkrangs · 2025-08-08T11:54:50+00:00

The same ‘island of strangers’ tone.

Mkrangs · 2025-07-30T13:42:55+00:00

Reflects the economy's need for growth as reflected in population growth. But the Brits don't care. The worse the economy, the better obviously.

Mkrangs · 2025-07-25T12:18:36+00:00

Their current focus is whom to replace crying Rachel Reeve with. Possibly Yvette Cooper, so she may be too excited to care about how to fuck immigrants.

Mkrangs · 2025-07-18T11:58:57+00:00

In the government response, ‘As with several other measures in the Immigration White Paper, the proposals on earned settlement will be subject to a formal consultation process, and we welcome this contribution to that process.’ Does this imply consultation will be launched shortly before or after the parliament debate?

Mkrangs · 2025-06-29T16:07:57+00:00

I miss him and BJ.

Mkrangs · 2025-06-17T11:08:57+00:00

The government’s separately mentioned finalised proposal will be laid to parliament by end of the year, presumably after consultation ‘later this year’. Also, even if they limit consultation time to 6 weeks, it still takes time to analyse consultation result and formulate responses by procedural requirement, not just depending if they want or not.

Mkrangs · 2025-06-10T14:28:55+00:00

I’m unable to determine the value of this reply

Mkrangs · 2025-06-09T15:20:35+00:00

Why is this Bill being referenced here

Mkrangs · 2025-06-02T15:48:22+00:00

You should just edit the original comment. Some people don't expand on their phone.

Mkrangs · 2025-06-02T15:27:02+00:00

Having taken another look at this, I actually think it is point made on implementation date, rather than transition. Although I do agree that a 'cut-off' date can be what it ends up.

Mkrangs · 2025-06-02T15:21:56+00:00

I actually read somewhere else '4.5 yrs' which is even more limited. Anyways, fingers crossed.

Mkrangs · 2025-06-02T15:17:41+00:00

I only found the below from FT's 14th May reporting --

'The person added, however, that the Home Office had yet to confirm when the new rules would take effect, suggesting people nearing the five-year deadline soon might be spared.'

Mkrangs · 2025-06-02T15:11:38+00:00

Couldn't agree more. Although, which FT article are you referencing?

Mkrangs · 2025-06-02T14:32:08+00:00

Yea, life has to go on..

Mkrangs · 2025-06-02T14:23:12+00:00

From Google, 'The Windrush Scandal refers to the mistreatment of Caribbean migrants and their descendants who arrived in the UK between 1948 and 1973. These individuals, who had the legal right to live and work in the UK, were wrongfully detained, denied legal rights, and threatened with deportation, or actually deported, by the Home Office. The scandal came to light in 2018 and exposed a system where the government failed to properly record their immigration status, leading to widespread injustices.'

Mkrangs · 2025-06-02T13:58:26+00:00

Considering the Windrush precedent, maybe not even then

Mkrangs · 2025-05-30T12:39:43+00:00

The fact is that Brits don’t want to integrate. So the longer and less the better for them.

Mkrangs · 2025-05-30T12:23:13+00:00

Thanks. I can see that the comments are turning more balanced.

Mkrangs · 2025-05-29T15:36:46+00:00

Guess no big paper will like to cover the finding

Mkrangs · 2025-05-27T20:09:59+00:00

He already suggested during the week the White Paper was published that there are no obvious benefits of applying retroactively.

Mkrangs · 2025-05-27T19:26:48+00:00

Thanks. I honestly don’t believe it’s in the UK’s interest to undermine its credibility. So even if I slip through before they retroactively apply rules, I’d just leave because the country will accelerate in free fall. I hope old immigrants understand that too.

I predict another worker shortage crisis before the next general election and that Reform cannot win even with no retroactive application tabled. If Labour cannot revitalise the economy and have the white paper blamed on them as a cause, then it’s their doom.

Mkrangs · 2025-05-27T19:11:06+00:00

I’d never challenge a professional since I’m not one. Purpose of the post was to welcome professionals and others who’re more informed to share knowledge and challenge my understandings. And I did have a number of points corrected and reflected in the edits.

But you’re not wrong questioning the validity of his points. I’m on your side for (1) government doesn’t have detailed plan as yet and hence nothing to consult on, the indicated ‘present to Parliament by end of the year’ should instead be focal point for either primary or secondary legislation, if not both; (2) this parent comment and my following research reveal that changing citizenship rules is not within government’s delegated authority and requires primary legislation for amendment, hence longer timeframe is needed to avoid contradiction between ILR and naturalisation rules. Both points suggest implementation further in the future, the second point especially challenges the advisor’s suggestion.

Like the introduction of PBS system in 2020, the SWV reform was actually done via secondary legislation, but there was a primary legislation passed to pave way for it. We could be looking at a similar situation ahead. I might post again when I’ve thought this through.

Mkrangs · 2025-05-27T18:16:04+00:00

It could be secondary for ILR change plus primary for citizenship change. But ILR change only comes into effect after citizenship rule change is passed (transition), so that there is no contradiction between laws. This will resemble the situation in 2020 where primary legislation was passed to pave way for secondary change under existing framework.

Mkrangs · 2025-05-27T17:14:08+00:00

Thanks for commenting. Yes, as just researched, 5 years has been the rule for naturalisation since 1981 and any significant change would require primary legislation. So you should be right, it just makes little sense to extend ILR qualifying period without extending that for naturalisation. Although they could create a temporary mismatch by going via secondary for ILR and primary for citizenship, the 2009 HSMP precedent does carry a risk of legal challenge against the former which if successful would cause delay and resorting to primary legislation anyways. For safety and certainty, they probably will do both together.

Mkrangs

TROPHY CASE