header-logo header-logo

23 October 2008 / Hina Majid
Issue: 7342 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

A minefield of confusion

Hina Majid on the government’s probationary citizenship proposals

Integration, international competitiveness, clarity of laws and efficient administration are all laudable aims and the government is right to pursue these objectives in redesigning its scheme for settlement and naturalisation. However, the fundamental problem with its current proposals is that they are unlikely to achieve any of the above.

The Draft (Partial) Immigration and Citizenship Bill’s key innovation, as regards citizenship, is to reflect the creation of a new “probationary citizenship” status. This is to be interposed between temporary leave and British citizenship. Although not presently stated in the Bill, the intention is that probationary citizenship will carry only limited access to the welfare state. In progressing from probationary to British citizenship, the key change is that economic migrants will be required to demonstrate that they have been in continuous employment, complying with certain, as yet unspecified, conditions. Partners and spouses will also be required to establish that they are in an ongoing relationship.

Time frames for naturalising
In terms of the time frames, probationary citizenship is

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll