New guidance states that anyone who enters the UK illegally having made a dangerous journey, which could be via boat, but also by means such as hiding in a vehicle, will normally be refused citizenship, regardless of the time that has passed.
In a statement, the Home Office said the strengthened measures made it clear that anyone who entered the UK illegally would face having a British citizenship application refused.
But, the change has been condemned by the Refugee Council and some Labour MPs - including Stella Creasy who said the change “meant refugees would forever remain second class citizens”.
Changes, first disclosed by the Free Movement blog, were introduced to guidance for visa and immigration staff on Monday.
Described as a “clarification” to case worker guidance when assessing if a claimant is of "good character’, it says: “Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place.”
Another new entry to the same guidance says: "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.
“A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance.”
Previously, refugees who had arrived by irregular routes would need to wait ten years before being considered.
You must log in or register to comment.
How is this news? Entering the country illegally is surely going to get any citizenship application denied
FFS nobody is walking off a boat and being given citizenship…ever!
First they’d have to be given permission to stay short term. Then indefinite permission to stay (which is normally linked to work status). Then after a decade they can apply for citizenship. Before citizenship, they can’t claim benefits and can need to make payments to qualify for NHS care.
…including Stella Creasy who said the change “meant refugees would forever remain second class citizens”.
No, they would never be able to become citizens. Her point has merit, but she needs to use the correct terms. Refugees are not citizens, because when they get citizenship they have a new home and are no longer refugees.
The language matters. There’s a narrative that we are a soft touch because people land on our shores and immediately get all the benefit of being British. It’s weaponised lies that need to be shown to be lies. Calling these people citizens feeds the lie.
Labour is running shit scared of Reform polling well so they’ll do anything to go after those voters. Newsflash: Appeasing them won’t work and will only legitimise even more extreme viewpoints.
Not only will appeasing them not work, it will alienate people who would otherwise vote Labour. This kind of thing is Labour just shooting themselves in the foot, even without Reform around they’d struggle to win any future elections but they just don’t see it (or don’t want to see it)
Someone needs to AI a video of Labour in opposition decrying this against Labour in government pushing this dog whistle agenda.
UK hearing Trump talk about making every other country but them the 51st state.
The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill sets out Labour’s plan to treat people smugglers like terrorists, and creates a new crime of endangering another person during an illegal crossing in the Channel.
Terrorist? Really? How anyone takes this seriously is beyond me.
The new charge of endangering life might have some effect although as I understand it the smugglers often nominate one of the travellers to “drive” the boat until it is picked up. I’m confused about the denying citizenship clause though. The last 14 years the Tories where complaining that human rights legislation meant they couldn’t deny asylum to people based on the way they got to the country. What changed?
IIRC, the ECHR thing was about the Rwanda flights, because the court was blocking them. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was also a violation, but it’d probably need to be taken to the courts to get a ruling.
