Play By The Rules And Get Punished Anyway?

[Kromovaracun]

https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21741587-extraordinarily-vague-good-character-test-accounts-rocketing-number-citizenship?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/promiscuousdivorcedeccentriclookingyoumaybedeniedapassportnosexpleasewerethehomeoffice

The Home Office is increasingly making use of an arbitrary "good character" clause to deny applications of British citizenship. Falling foul of this clause includes any record of minor offenses (including speeding tickets), looking to too eccentric, or - bizarrely - being too promiscuous.

This means that someone who wants to naturalise and passes all other standards - i.e. has the means to support themselves financially, has lived here for a sufficiently long period, has passed the English language and Life in the UK tests, paid their NHS surcharges, etc., can be denied UK citizenship because of their sex lives or how they dress. About 40% of citizenship applications are denied under this clause.

This is disgraceful. We are always hearing that "good immigrants" with something to offer are welcome, but are willing to deny naturalisation based on utterly flimsy criteria in order to meet an arbitrary 100k target. The target obsessed culture in the HO is making us look like a paranoid backwater that just hates all foreigners.

[Ken4155]

Careful, Krom. You'll upset half the people who use this site! :-/

[scooping]

When more than half of births in Greater London are to mothers who were born outside the UK it is surely not unreasonable to attempt to reduce immigration and its effects on public services.

[bhg481]

Perhaps the "too promiscuous" bit is to make sure Donald Trump can't get British citizenship.

[youngmafbog]

The article is too vague, hardly surprising from this publication.

As far as I am concerned "receiving a police caution, skipping a tax bill or “recklessly” accruing debt" is not good character.

And this bit has to raise questions "Immigration lawyers believe "

The key word here being "believe". So no hard facts then?

[Kromovaracun]

It is, however, completely unreasonable to pluck a hasty soundbite out of nowhere and force every aspect of immigration policy into line with it. Migration is a vastly complex area that cannot be reduced to an obsession with "100k cause no mor foreigners!" It is simply not good enough.

[Kromovaracun]

//The guidelines list characteristics that “should not normally, of themselves, be relevant”, including drinking, gambling, divorce, promiscuity and “eccentricity, including beliefs, appearance and lifestyle”. But, they go on, somewhat ambiguously, applicants may be rejected if “the scale and persistence of their behaviour” has made them “notorious in their local or the wider community”. //

[Kromovaracun]

So if you're too much of a *** or too many old biddies don't like the cut of your jib, you can be refused naturalisation even if you do everything else correctly.

I'm not sure one police caution or speeding fine in the 5+ years (I think) you need to live here before applying for citizenship is a rational and sensible indication of character.

[woofgang]

that seems to be a fairly vague article "people could be refused on these grounds but we don't know if they are or have been and the only case we do know about was reversed on appeal"

[naomi24]

Krom at 07:54, I doubt many 'old biddies' are instrumental in making these decisions. I'm happy for people who are "notorious in their local or the wider community” to be refused citizenship.

[youngmafbog]

Krom, I think you need to go have a cup of tea and get some perspective on this article. It has been written to wind up lefties and seems to be acheiving its goal on you.

[Kromovaracun]

"notoriety" can just mean "rumours" , though. Bear in mind that is referring to people who are notorious for being eccentric or promiscuous. Neither of those things are a crime in the UK. What you are saying is that you are happy for any foreigner who people accuse of being a bit weird (or having too much sex) to be denied citizenship even if they do everything else right.

That is frankly ridiculous. That is playing by the rules we set and then getting punished anyway.

[Kromovaracun]

//Since 2012 the number of applications thrown out under a “good character” clause has doubled (see chart). In 2016, the most recent year for which data are available, this was the cause of 44% of all refusals.//

//Yet the definition of bad character is extraordinarily broad. The guidelines list characteristics that “should not normally, of themselves, be relevant”, including drinking, gambling, divorce, promiscuity and “eccentricity, including beliefs, appearance and lifestyle”. But, they go on, somewhat ambiguously, applicants may be rejected if “the scale and persistence of their behaviour” has made them “notorious in their local or the wider community”. //

// Officials can turn down a candidate if they have any unspecified “doubts about their character”.//

[naomi24]

If applications are limited I’d prefer to give someone with no ‘baggage’ the opportunity. That, to me, seems far more sensible than wilfully importing potential problems.

[Kromovaracun]

It's not drummed up out of nowhere ymb. The HO guidelines state that the SoS must be satisfied that an applicant is of good character, but openly says there is no definition for what 'good character' means - so it is effectively impossible for applicants to prove themselves to be of good character. If the person processing your application doesn't like you, they can arbitrarily deny you naturalisation even if you have done everything you are supposed to do.

Wake up. The Home Office is in a disastrous state that treats people with arbitrary cruelty and turns our immigration system into an inconsistent nightmare all in pursuit of an unachievable target. This is not a good thing. Windrush is only the most egregious and recent example of how disastrously this can affect people who have every right to be here.

[youngmafbog]

I do have some sympathy with what you are saying but I want hard facts. NOT beliefs.

[Kromovaracun]

Who doesn't have baggage?!

Rumours of 'eccentricity' about someone counts as baggage, does it? Or being promiscuous? Or a parking ticket?

You really are willing to bend over backwards and make any excuse whatsoever for the government. They must be very grateful!

[youngmafbog]

Krom

Proof this has happened?

Come up with it and I may back you, at present you are going on hearsay.

[naomi24]

Krom, //You really are willing to bend over backwards and make any excuse whatsoever for the government.//

Not at all. Immigration must be controlled and, as I said, I’d much rather have people of good character here than the rest.

[Togo]

Don't tell me that we have stopped a few Albanian gangsters from gaining citizenship. Dear me. They will have to sneak back in if we manage to get shut of them.

[Togo]

// In one case, a Botswanan who had served in the British army failed the character test because he had broken the speed limit on a motorway (the decision was later reversed in court)//

One of the examples "quoted" in the op.

//Solange Valdez-Symonds, head of the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens//

Good old British name there.