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.
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.