New EU immigration regulations may lead to deportations

[Mistigri]

Article on new HO regulations concerning the rights of EU citizens in the UK:

www.freemovement.org.uk/briefing-legal-status-eu-citizens-uk/

On the face of it, these new rules would appear to give the HO the right to deport any EU citizen without permanent residency rights, who is not currently exercising treaty rights and who does not have private health insurance. This will include many EU spouses of UK citizens who are not currently working and cannot document a 5 year period during which they exercised treaty rights - regardless of the amount of time they have spent in the UK.

This gives a whole new slant to those HO letters suggesting that EU citizens make plans to leave. Might be time for affected EU citizens to consider legal advice :-/

(Weird and hostile way of opening negotiations with the EU27 over migrants' rights - I am coming to the conclusion that May may actually want the negotiations to fail).

I said I'm a EU citizen living in a EU state.

call an election and get a massive majority
Wonder why she doesn't.

I said "a EU state" as in a member state, which you've chosen to read as The EU State!

First off it should be an EU state. However you didnt say a member state you phrased it to be a EU state. Their is no such legal thing as the EU state. In normal conversation it wouldn't be an issue but in a detailed forum about the legalities of people within a state it is very important. The UK is the state NOT the EU.

Definite Article vs Indefinite Article, "the EU state" vs "a EU state"

First off it should be "first of"

Is it wine o'clock yet?

Put it another way:

Would you prefer May to accept the Lords' amendment, as the price for sticking to her self-imposed A50 schedule (due 9th March, this Thursday), or would you prefer her to fight the amendment as far as appointing 200 new peers? Obviously this would imply a significant delay to the process.

I find it immensely curious that people are prepared to put A50 on hold over this ultimately rather unimportant amendment.

It strikes me that for a person allegedly committed to a rapid A50 process, May has gone out of her way to delay it: first by fighting the A50 case when she could simply have forced legislation through parliament after she lost the first round, and now by picking an unnecessary fight with the Lords.

At what point do we ask whether she really wants to initiate the brexit process at all?!

Nope

First of all

Or

First off

2 completely separate terms of speech

Both mean the same thing.

Both I accept, you are all very welcome.

Forgive me, but as a dual citizen born and resident in the UK I am not worried about being stripped of my UK citizenship. Why? Because the people at risk of being stripped of their UK citizenship are people like Abu Hamza or that Albanian murderer who got his UK citizenship through deception (in his case pretending to be a Kosovan Albanian). People who gained their UK citizenship through deception, who wish the UK harm and/or are engaged in some kind of terrorist activities. People who the vast majority of law abiding Brits would be horrified have UK citizenship to start with and would not be sad to see them stripped of. I do not believe, even for a nanosecond, that this country would strip any decent, law abiding person of their UK citizenship for no reason whatsoever.

Neither do I june

Hasn't the protection of people living in Britain from EU already been tabled as long as expats rights were also protected by the EU but has been prevented as several EU states are refusing to sign?

I do not believe, even for a nanosecond, that this country would strip any decent, law abiding person of their UK citizenship for no reason whatsoever.

I'm a bit more sceptical (especially as the opportunity to subject the process to some form of judicial oversight was turned down) but I agree that it is irrelevant to EU citizens right now. It's a human rights issue, but not a brexit issue.

People still very unwilling to explain why the Lords' amendment is so important that it's worth delaying the brexit process for. You're really invested in this bargaining chip idea, aren't you?

The Lords thing is a red herring. The sooner Britain tables Article 50 and starts negotiating and we actually get some facts to deal with regarding this whole Brexit thing, the better. Brexit is going ahead, whether we like it not. So we may as well start the process and see what happens.

If you have citizenship you are a British citizen end of story. Some people on here are a bit nuts June. Don't let them scare you. Yes to remove citizenship you need to do something hideous.

You sound far too rational to scare anyway.

They need to hold.eu citizens (non uk citizens) residency over Europe or they will have an unfair advantage in negotiations that's all.

for those who need it.

Hasn't the protection of people living in Britain from EU already been tabled as long as expats rights were also protected by the EU but has been prevented as several EU states are refusing to sign?

so we can't be decent unless everyone else is
Wasn't the point of Brexit that Britain could act independently?
So why can't we look after the people in OUR country? and not use them as bargaining chips?
and then ALSO work on protecting rights for ex-pats!

It's like a fucking game "I will if you do" "no I will if you do first" "no you do it first them I will"

Fuck sake!

Would you prefer May to accept the Lords' amendment, as the price for sticking to her self-imposed A50 schedule (due 9th March, this Thursday), or would you prefer her to fight the amendment as far as appointing 200 new peers? Obviously this would imply a significant delay to the process

Yes, that is the question. But the choice is not as you have outlined.

You say its a self imposed dead line but if we miss it we end up having EU elections just before we are about to leave and that has unknown implications/costs.

The amendment on its on isn't a deal breaker, I actually think EU citizens will get a better deal if we negotiate the details with the EU but that aside.

Accepting the amendment opens a Pandoras box of other amendments, crucially the one for a vote in 2 years to stay in the EU. Massively more important. So getting the bill through unamended is the most important thing.

Everyone was happy with agreeing it upfront except for Merkel.

My EU other half just got British citizenship. It wasn't too bad to get it.
I think this is the most sensible approach if one is planning on staying here long term.

People who gained their UK citizenship through deception, who wish the UK harm and/or are engaged in some kind of terrorist activities. People who the vast majority of law abiding Brits would be horrified have UK citizenship to start with and would not be sad to see them stripped of.

A judicial process would support that!

Under May, there need be no judicial process, no evidence, no defense, people don't even need to be told why.
Dual citizens no longer have the same rights as sole citizens (who cannot be made stateless). That is a fact not fearmongering

I agree anon

Hasn't the protection of people living in Britain from EU already been tabled as long as expats rights were also protected by the EU but has been prevented as several EU states are refusing to sign?

This is not correct. It's true that Merkel said that negotiations would have to wait for A50, but she doesn't speak for the EU on this matter.

Moreover, non-EU immigration isn't an EU competence : policy with regard to residence rights for non-EU citizens is set by national governments. This means that (setting aside the improbable "associate citizenship" proposal) it may require legislation in 27 separate national parliaments to secure the rights of British migrants. I don't doubt that the EU will have some influence, but it will ultimately be up to the parliamentarians of each individual EU state.

Many EU states offer better protection already to the people hardest hit by the UK stance, ie non-working spouses and children - in France for example, spouses and parents of French citizens have residence rights that are completely separate from EU law. As the parent of two French citizens I will qualify for a residence card on that basis; I do not rely solely on my treaty rights.

Congrats Kennington

The Lords thing is a red herring. The sooner Britain tables Article 50 and starts negotiating and we actually get some facts to deal with regarding this whole Brexit thing, the better. Brexit is going ahead, whether we like it not. So we may as well start the process and see what happens.

So why doesn't she take the amendment and get on with it then? If sooner is better, what is she waiting for?

My EU other half just got British citizenship. It wasn't too bad to get it.

That's great for him, but less useful advice for the approximately 30% of applicants who have been turned down for PR, which is now a prerequisite ...

This is not correct. It's true that Merkel said that negotiations would have to wait for A50, but she doesn't speak for the EU on this matter.

But haven't several Members of the EU including the UK tried to solve this already with Merkel and others refusing to?