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 to last anything from one to five years. The total

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll