Thailand-UK ประเทศไทย-สหราชอาณาจักร

Forums ฟอรั่มส์

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    Member สมาชิก
    Join Date
    7 Jun 2006
    Location
    SkegVega
    Posts
    179

    Default

    A month or so ago I read a post regarding the application for citizenship and how it is going to chance. It was something along the lines of it is going to change from 3 years to 5 years unless you can prove volunteer work in which it will be back to 3 years. At the time of the post it had had its first read in the house of lords.

    Has anybody heard anything else about this? We are hoping to apply for citizenship in October and so we are hoping to that the rules don't change before then.

  2. #2
    R.I.P. ddwjg's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Jun 2003
    Location
    Sattahip Thailand
    Posts
    5,070

    Default

    I know even less than you. What is "it" that is going to change from 3 to 5 years? And since when did citizenship require the applicant to have worked? What about housewives, or whatever the politically correct term is now? Dave.

  3. #3
    Member สมาชิก
    Join Date
    8 Jan 2006
    Posts
    24

    Default

    there is still a fair way to go on this legislation yet and it is unlikely that it will recieve royal assent by october.as i understand it next year seems more likely,even then the question would remain about people already in the system and the extent it could be retrospective ie to change the position of those already well down the path of the old citizenship route those with indefinate leave to remain for example, i would have thought it highly unlikely that people in that kind of position would be affected. as i read it the spirit of the new legislation is to move everyone living full time in the uk through to citizenship. with the exception of those who can claim that they would lose the citizenship of their original home country where that country does not allow dual nationality for its citizens, only these people would be allowed to remain in a new category of permanant residence without citizenship, effectivly the same status as ILR.the extra probationary time that is being added is in the period leading up to the point that the person is either granted citizenship or this new permanant residence status.the old ILR category would no longer exist. i dont see how (human rights etc)the legislation could reset the position of those who already have ILR

  4. #4
    Member สมาชิก
    Join Date
    8 Jan 2006
    Posts
    24

    Default

    sorry thats not very clear; as i read it the new legislation would no longer mean ILR was granted as a stepping stone to citizenship, that category would no longer exist for new applicants. people on the route to citizenship or permanant residence without citizenship would be granted limited leave to remain during their probationary period. but for those people who have already been granted ILR i dont see how that can be taken off them, my guess is the govt will look to move as many of this group as it can into citizenship (which most want anyway) or, effectivly grandfather them into permanant residence without citizenship.

  5. #5
    Premium Member Gary & Nok's Avatar
    Join Date
    5 Mar 2006
    Location
    Birmingham - UK
    Posts
    13,380

    Default

    Originally posted by wordchild:
    sorry thats not very clear;
    well try using sentences and paragraphs. I am sure that would help
    Bye Bye EU Day 31st December 2020 (11 p.m.)

  6. #6
    Premium Member caller's Avatar
    Join Date
    7 Sep 2005
    Location
    Hua Hin & Bangkok
    Posts
    5,684

    Default

    Originally posted by wordchild:
    i dont see how (human rights etc)the legislation could reset the position of those who already have ILR
    With apologies to worldchild, but I absolutely hate all the references to HRA, when it appears the vast majority don't understand it? Most of the rights that many would assume are a given i.e. cannot be interfered with full stop, are actually not. They are 'qualified', meaning there are some proviso's added in, included in the 'qualified' list are the right to privacy and a family life.

    I have cut and pasted this as it seems pretty clear to me and might help with understanding more? -

    Qualified rights
    Any infringement needs to promote a specific legitimate aim - in interests of national security, public safety etc. The infringement must be properly regulated by the law and must be necessary in a democratic society. This latter concept means the interference with the right must be a proportionate response to the legitimate aim. If the aim can be achieved by a less intrusive method then that method must be used instead. They are as follows:

    Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life
    You have the right to respect for your private and family life, your home and your correspondence. This right can only be restricted in specified circumstances.

    Article 9: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion
    You are free to hold a broad range of views, beliefs and thoughts, as well as religious faith. Limitation are permitted only in specified circumstances.

    Article 10: Freedom of Expression
    You have the right to hold opinions and express your views on your own or in a group. This applies even if they are unpopular or disturbing. This right can only be restricted in certain circumstances.

    Article 11: Freedom of Assembly and Association
    You have the right to assemble with other people in a peaceful way. You also have the right to associate with other people, which can include the right to form a trade union. These rights may be restricted only in specified circumstances.

    Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination
    In the application of the Convention rights, you have the right not to be treated differently because of your race, religion, sex, political views or any other status, unless this can be justified objectively. Everyone must have equal access to Convention rights, whatever their status.

    Protocol 1, Article 1: Protection of Property
    You have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of your possessions. Public authorities cannot usually interfere with things you own or the way you use them except in specified limited circumstances.
    'Tis me

  7. #7
    Member สมาชิก
    Join Date
    8 Jan 2006
    Posts
    24

    Default

    i was not referring to the HRA in specific but to human rights in general,as i understand it there have been a number of objections raised along these lines to govt already as far as this bill is concerned. i find it difficult to see how any government could remove the right of ILR once it has been granted and stamped in a passport! basic fairness would mean some sort of transitional phase would need to be put in place for those in this position.and that is my understanding of what will happen,for what its worth.

  8. #8
    Premium Member caller's Avatar
    Join Date
    7 Sep 2005
    Location
    Hua Hin & Bangkok
    Posts
    5,684

    Default

    Specifics/general is irrelevant, there is only one HR considered - the one in statute. And they can remove citizenship, yet alone ILR.
    'Tis me

  9. #9
    Member สมาชิก
    Join Date
    7 Jun 2006
    Location
    SkegVega
    Posts
    179

    Default

    so we are saying that it unlikely to take effect until at least next year and will possibly not affect those already with ILR. Thanks

  10. #10
    Member สมาชิก
    Join Date
    8 Jan 2006
    Posts
    24

    Default

    oh my goodness of course they can! the uk has no limit (almost) on the legislative power of government, the HRA is a blind alley as, i think, you suggest caller { though you may still be up it!) some have even talked recently about the possibility of legislation to recast an indeviduals pension rights as legally granted by his private sector employer the "poor old " former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, they CAN do anything through legislation . the point i was making (ever so gently) is in the real world would they? i will slightly break cover here and say i have good reason to believe that on thinking through the proposed legislation my understanding is that the government has got concerns (from a general human rights perspective) about the position of those who currently have already been granted ILR.while i think the government believes there are many who abuse ILR ie dont really live here any more but travel here from time to time to "freshen up" their ILR and they want to get rid of this sort of behavior they are concernened about those who are genuinely on the path to citizenship or real residence whose position might be affected by any change in the law. That is my final word on the subject!

  11. #11
    Moderator John's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 2002
    Location
    Birmingham, England
    Posts
    8,386

    Default

    i find it difficult to see how any government could remove the right of ILR once it has been granted and stamped in a passport!
    It is already on the Statute Book. ILR can be removed .... if it was obtained by fraud.

    The new prospective law? It is of course still being discussed in Parliament, but provisional citizenship sounds little different from ILR.
    John

  12. #12
    Member สมาชิก
    Join Date
    8 Jan 2006
    Posts
    24

    Default

    sorry doggsy, so in summary, my view and it is only a view though i think an informed one , is that when we see the new legislation which i think will NOT become law before next year there will be transition provisions which will mean that those who already have ILR and have genuine residence will still be able to move forward to citizenship on the old timetable, that IS my final word on the subject!

  13. #13
    Premium Member caller's Avatar
    Join Date
    7 Sep 2005
    Location
    Hua Hin & Bangkok
    Posts
    5,684

    Default

    For what it's worth Worldchild, I have to consider the implications of HRA on an almost daily basis in the day job. No blind alley's here.
    'Tis me

  14. #14
    Member สมาชิก
    Join Date
    8 Jan 2006
    Posts
    24

    Default

    apologies caller i do not mean HRA in itself is unimportant its just that i never meant that it applied in my original response to doggsy,s question. we all know this govt has shown general contempt for human rights but even they sometimes have to consider them (in a broad sense) when looking at new legislation and how it may go down in an increasingly sensitve parliament.

  15. #15
    Guest Flip's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,995

    Default

    quote:
    i find it difficult to see how any government could remove the right of ILR once it has been granted and stamped in a passport
    As John says, yes they can. Not only that, citizenship can be also be revoked in certain circumstances. Ask Abu Hamza

  16. #16
    Member สมาชิก
    Join Date
    8 Jan 2006
    Posts
    24

    Default

    because this forum (reasonably enough) tends to focus mainly on uk visa issues for thai females; contributors tend to have a certain frame of reference on these matters laced sometimes and again reasonably with the paranoia of their own personal experience . The reason ILR removal is potentialy such a delicate issue for govt is because in the past it has been granted to many different types of migrant and for many different reasons. Now,those who rely on it for uk residency as a group are large, economicaly significant and influential, forget thai spouses think more wealthy nom-doms, american/japenese/indian/russian industrialists and bankers (and gangsters!) ,the owner of harrods etc etc. think of the legal and PR muscle some of that lot could muster. in an interview in the guardian a couple of months ago (sorry i dont have the link,but its an easy search) the home secretary herself tried to play down the implications for people who already hold ILR in that interview she implied that the new legislation would only apply to new entrants into the uk after 2010. my money would be on some incentive to get as many ILR into citizenship as poss and then grandfather the rest into the new permanant residence category.

  17. #17
    Old Hand มือเก่า
    Join Date
    19 Oct 2004
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    1,428

    Default

    Originally posted by wordchild:
    ..the owner of harrods..
    I'm sure the government, given half a chance, would love to remove his ILR. They certainly don't like the idea of him becoming British.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •