Reform plans to scrap indefinite leave to remain for migrants

What exactly is intended by “ending family reunification?” Most of the extended reunification was ended years and years ago - no bringing over aged parents, no extended family, etc.

If they mean a flat banning of reuniting people with spouses and children, that’s horrendous no matter who’s suggesting it.

Yes. Absolutely. People who think that Labour is unfairly punished by the press seem to miss the perspective of how this would play out under a different political banner.

This sounds like we are living in a very similar situation. Just switch out Aussie for a Kiwi, and we made similar decisions for similar reasons. I think asking people to give up their dual nationality seems like the step that is purely ideological or disruptive for sport.

Anyone who is surprised that people haven't applied for citizenship under the current system must like taking tests and burning money to get their kicks.

You'd have to ask them but IDLR is based on being a citizen of another country.

It's not the same as being a dual national and I don't think keeping it while renouncing citizenship of, say, Jamaica is do-able.

One reason is that it makes re-entering your home country straightforward.

10 years is a change and a significant one, but it is fair because it’s being communicated in advance of people moving here. They can make an informed choice on whether they want to bring their software engineering skills here or to another market as a result.

It’s the retrospective elements of Reform’s plan that are getting people’s backs up.

Going back to this as there’s also been radio silence on ending family reunification on here, unsurprisingly. The same posters probably think that’s pretty good for Labour, whereas it would be racist and repugnant for anyone else.

Because they have a foot in two places, not one. ILR means they are resident in Britain but do not have full rights - they can be deported if they commit a crime, which a citizen cannot. (Clearly they are not planning or accepting to commit any crimes if they have been under ILR for decades - I bet that’s never occurred to you!)

They have family, history, and emotional connections in two places, not one. Even if they don’t live in this country of origin, the odds are good they visit pretty often and take their British families.

Perhaps it’s having an Aussie husband who grew up in a house full of Britishmess, just as our kids are growing up in a house full of Auatralianness, but I find your question pretty thoughtless. It is not hard to work out why people keep their original citizenships, if your pause to empathise with them for even a few minutes.

If what you mean to ask is “why don’t they apply for British citizenship with all its attendant rights,” I can only answer for my other half. It’s expensive, he’s paid quite a bit into the Home Office already, the kids are dual and having ILR hasn’t been a problem. If it’s made a problem, yes he’ll apply for naturalisation.

But if you tell us he has to give up this citizenship and the kids do too because the U.K. won’t accept dual citizenship, the background option of moving to Aus (which I’ve not wanted because I don’t want to leave my own family) suddenly looks more relevant, because the U.K. would be clearly trying to punish and make an example of us. All of us, including the kids.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

@Upstartled and @EasternStandard I can understand where you’re coming from, but I would say that Labour have received a lot of backlash and criticism, for both the policy and the speech, from many of their voters and those on the Left - there are plenty who view it as them pandering to Reform and their voters. I appreciate that this doesn’t always filter through into the MSM, etc. in the same way, but left-wing social media was certainly outraged and they’ve lost voters over this.

I also think context is key, particularly with Reform and Farage’s track record. For one example, he recently announced a policy on mass deportations which he confirmed would included negotiating with the Taliban (at our financial cost) and returning women to Afghanistan, when the ICC have issued arrest warrants for the Taliban due to their persecution of women and gender-based violence. There’s a clear message here about what he’s willing to do in terms of immigration - we know what fate awaits those Afghan women if returned like he has pledged - and so understandably, people are very concerned about his total disregard for human rights and history has a few lessons for us on how that usually goes, so it make sense to be concerned about how this develops and expands.

If someone’s lived her for ‘decades and decades’, and want to continue to live here, why wouldn’t they relinquish the citizenship of the country where they were born and don’t want to live in anymore?

It might work or might just kick the can down the road a bit. It would need to be combined with other measures. And also for people to be fully aware of the rules before they decide to come here (hence why the retrospective element of Reform's suggestions are controversial I think).

I think there are pp who are very loyal to Labour. Maybe reliant on them too.

The retrospective issue does seem unfair but as @EasternStandard said early this Labour government was able to publish a White paper planning to retrospectively shift the goalpost to gaining ilr status from 5 year residency to 10 without raising an eyebrow - there was certainly no backlash that I recall and it was done around the same time as his Island of Strangers speech - which people looking to see if if passed the racist sniff test might call context.

I don't know why people are putting down their critical lens when one party does things that would ignite outrage from another. Is it that people are so trusting of Labour that this stuff doesn't invoke a shrug or would this retrospective sleight of hand be okay from other parties too?

Not the point of the topic I know, but I’m not sure that Dubai is an ideal comparison and certainly not a model to follow, on many levels - it’s reported that over 80% of the population are immigrant workers and the human rights abuses and exploitation of many of those are well-documented. Unless, you’re just focusing on the ‘ex-pat’ community who are experiencing a very different lifestyle.

This model of working in UK no ILR is similar to Dubai immigration rules.. Nobody does protest to get ILR in Dubai. As long as you are working , you can live in Dubai . You work for 30 plus years in dubai , you still won't get any citizenship except for those who have Emirate connections

Apologies. I can't remember your previous posts and can't reread them to check what you mean as they have been deleted by mumsnet. Presume for the personal attacks towards me. I didn't report them incidentally.

I know you say you don't want to engage with me.. but to stop engaging with me, you probably have to stop writing me long posts? Just a suggestion.

I am a non eu national with settled status under the European scheme (as i lived in germany while my british husband was a student in berlin 10 years ago). I could vote from the moment i came in 2016 (though i did live here from 2011 to 2014) on the initial 6 month residence visa. I now have a 2 month old British son.

Apparently the European settled status scheme wouldn't be abolished but I don't trust farage to not try his luck, even risking economic war with the eu.

And yes, much like the Brexit referendum. Everyone who was a permanent resident and taxpayer here should have had a vote in that.

Commonwealth citizens who are permanent residents here are allowed to vote in general elections, whereas, for example, EU citizens who are permanent residents can only vote in local elections (and this was the case even when we were in the EU). The UK electoral system has many anomalies like this that distort it.

I've had ILR for over 30 years and have been voting in every election that's happened in that time. On the electoral role it correctly states my citizenship as non UK.
Really?? I was pretty sure you would only be able to vote in local elections. My husband isn’t eligible to vote in a general ( ILR).
I am certainly not suggesting you try to get citizenship. My point was that people on ILR already do not have the same rights as citizens.
Additionally I find it interesting that Farage is proposing a policy that affects people who can’t vote against it. So it would depend on British Citizens to do that.

Reforming/modernising the ECHR is an option.

I'm not giving up anything. There seems to be a determined effort to craft observations, here - that there is a push back against the ECHR across the political spectrum to varying degrees, into an accusatory presumption of desirability for the policy itself.

For clarity, I think that the ECHR has been employed in bad faith but I don't see that the baby needs to go out with the bathwater. But nor do I think that the opinion that it is beyond that point already, is inherently racist or a proxy for lobbying against all human rights.

And, I'm off for a while, so - I'm not being churlish when/ if anyone replies on the back of this post - just out.