3. And there's also this to make it even clearer: "A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship." - ThreadSky

colinyeo.bsky.social • 22 days ago

3. And there's also this to make it even clearer:

"A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship."

Comments

colinyeo.bsky.social•22 days ago

4. This is bad full stop. It creates a class of person who are forever excluded from civic life no matter how long they live here. It's also a a clear breach of the Refugee Convention. And it will also, just as clearly, have zero deterrent effect. It's totally pointless in real-world policy terms.

supernovalabs.co.uk•21 days ago

Its unecessarily punitive and unkind tbh.

colinyeo.bsky.social•22 days ago

5. Article 31 says refugees shall not be penalised for illegal entry:

blizard.io•22 days ago

I think this is a shitty move, but the key word in there is 'directly' isn't it?

colinyeo.bsky.social•22 days ago

6. And Article 34 says:

colinyeo.bsky.social•22 days ago

7. The new policy seems to include wiggle room by using the word "normally". But applications cost £1,680, which is non-refundable if refused. No-one is even going to apply if the guidance says their application should "normally" be refused.

colinyeo.bsky.social•22 days ago

8. We've been here before. A similar change (but a 10 year ban) was introduced in 2015 then modified to exclude refugees.

colinyeo.bsky.social•22 days ago

9. The new government claim to be taking international law seriously. Doesn't look like it.

They claim to be competent not theatrical. Doesn't look like it.

This is a terrible policy change and should be reversed.

stevepeers.bsky.social•22 days ago

Unlike some other provisions of the Convention, Article 34 is *not* limited to refugees who are lawfully resident.

againstlies.bsky.social•22 days ago

I doubt the policy infringes Art 31, but it does seem to breach Article 34. Any case law? Any other country adopting this approach?

bpsmithuk.bsky.social•22 days ago

This isn't a penalty, Colin.
Its just a change away from being automatic to being taken on a case by case basis.
People may still be granted citizenship under this change if they entered illegally.

ambientologa.bsky.social•22 days ago

But the default position is "no". And if they wanted to say case by case, they would have said it.

bpsmithuk.bsky.social•22 days ago

That's what "default" means, though. As Colin says in his posts numbered 2 & 3, its only "normally" refused. That means exceptions will be granted. That means assessing case by case.

You see? Reading the context always helps.

baronnessmargy.bsky.social•22 days ago

Ah, but the racists will like it, soooo...

stevesed.bsky.social•22 days ago

And to top it all, it won’t gain them a single Reform voter. They hate Starmer.

fallingoffthefence.bsky.social•22 days ago

What can we do?

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply