Reform plans to scrap indefinite leave to remain for migrants

Why do you think the scenario I have outlined, which is Reform’s policy is an acceptable outcome? I feel it is racially motivated

All governments make similar decisions on what is available, even Labour. So they are racist and repugnant too?

What are the benefits of being a national of your own country though? Do you think a.non national should have as many rights as a national? Does this happen in all other countries?

I’ve said why I find it racist. Could some of the defenders here return the courtesy please?

What are the benefits of being a national of your own country though? Do you think a.non national should have as many rights as a national? Does this happen in all other countries?

I think you and I may differ as to the idea of racism vs nationalism. I would regard it as racist to have a policy that achieves this;

a) British person employed at 35,000 a year, has benefits and public service entitlement

b) not British person, employed at 35,000 a year, no benefits or PSE

Btw I am not saying this is legally impossible, but that I find it morally repugnant and racist.

I think you and I may differ as to the idea of racism vs nationalism. I would regard it as racist to have a policy that achieves this;

a) British person employed at 35,000 a year, has benefits and public service entitlement

b) not British person, employed at 35,000 a year, no benefits or PSE

Btw I am not saying this is legally impossible, but that I find it morally repugnant and racist.

But you said racist, which race is being asked to jump through hoops that others are not?

But all the main parties are considering it. Reform have just jumped in first.

Well I disagree because the effect seems to be one about being British or not British, and having a lesser legal status as a result. The justification appears to be benefits, but it seems to me that was the mischief, you could probably amend ILR entitlement much more easily than doing this. The motivation to me appears divisive and racist, because the economic case for this policy was not clear at all. It was a principle being announced, for that motivation, and then an economic case shall be made later. If you announce a policy like this, imo without that backing, it’s done as a kind of sounding bell to emotion

Well I disagree because the effect seems to be one about being British or not British, and having a lesser legal status as a result. The justification appears to be benefits, but it seems to me that was the mischief, you could probably amend ILR entitlement much more easily than doing this. The motivation to me appears divisive and racist, because the economic case for this policy was not clear at all. It was a principle being announced, for that motivation, and then an economic case shall be made later. If you announce a policy like this, imo without that backing, it’s done as a kind of sounding bell to emotion

Surely the intent is demonstrate a route to reduce the welfare bill? Or, as a pp suggested, to fill acres of column inches in the press with the concept of a Boriswave - and cut any political aspirations off at the knees.

I certainly don't think it's racist. Which race is being discriminated against by asking immigrants to take on citizenship to have the right of citizens?

Do you not understand English?

I didn’t write “they are trying to amend the ECHR and its interpretation, though case law.” There was no comma after “interpretation” indicating that the amendments would done via case law.

The sentence I wrote quite clearly means they are considering how the ECHR could be revised given the issues with the EHCR and its interpretation through case law, I.e. discussing possible amendments to the EHCR that will prevent it being misinterpreted through case law.

Your posts get increasingly absurd as the thread goes on.

Just trying to help the PP. That's the second time at least on this thread that someone has needed to clarify what "These people" means when you write it. And both times you meant reform supporters. "Fans" I think you called them.

Obviously if it upsets so much you, do grass me up again to MN.

I’m not getting the racist part either. It’s limiting but then so is Labour’s move to ten year ILR. Is that racist?

Labour have moved many goalposts, mostly to try and catch up with Reform.

Surely the intent is demonstrate a route to reduce the welfare bill? Or, as a pp suggested, to fill acres of column inches in the press with the concept of a Boriswave - and cut any political aspirations off at the knees.

I certainly don't think it's racist. Which race is being discriminated against by asking immigrants to take on citizenship to have the right of citizens?

Yes me again. Keeping you right 😃

You said "many sensible European countries have been discussing ways to amend the ECHR and interpretation through case law". I'm simply pointing out that it is impossible to amend the ECHR through caselaw.

Just trying to help you. You said in the same post that "Robert Jenrick is thick", so..

Most developed countries have permanent residency as a precursor to naturalisation. It has many advantages for both parties.

For the host country, it removes a layer of expensive administration on the way to someone becoming a citizen, but also keeps them from having full citizen rights. Someone with ILR can’t reside out of the country for more than 2 years without losing their ILR altogether, for example. They can also be deported if they commit a crime. So ILR residents don’t have full “British” rights, they are just allowed to stay as long as they continue to be good.

For the ILR holder, it encourages them to further lean into Britishness and becoming a productive member of society beyond the already established working, paying taxes, following the law, etc. For mixed nationality couples, it encourages them to have their families here and raise their children as British.

Getting rid of this step makes little sense to the economic health of a country. It really only seems to be appealing to people who sincerely believe ILR-paid taxes are not real taxes.

But it’s very odd gesture to make, @Upstartled because as you note, on scrutiny, it’s barely a policy. That really leaves you with the intent, which imo is racist.

Why bother?

Oh dear, you’re back to more ad hominem attacks, are you? And now trying to recruit other posters to participate in the false claims you’ve made wilfully attempting to misrepresent posts of mine throughout this thread, all of which have been called out and shown to be false and some of which were so egregious that they broke the talk guidelines and have been deleted by moderators.

I have made no insulting comments to any other poster on the thread at any point. The only person who has done that is you, as evidenced by the deletions of the unwarranted and unacceptable personal insults you posted to posters with whom you don’t agree. How ironic.

All the parties are now looking at removing ILR though?