How I ended up working illegally in the UK
medium.com
medium.com
I will answer questions to the best of my knowledge. Please be nice.
The BRP was enacted earlier this year. I have had two passports since my ILR visa was issued (it's currently affixed in an old passport). So I do have a current passport, it's just that the visa is in an old one.
I do qualify for citizenship, and it did cross my mind. But it's quite expensive for me. And to add insult to injury, I would still need the BRP (£1000~ citizenship + £660 BRP). For me that's not an amount I have readily available.
Maybe I took my visa for granted, but I was awarded it when I was a teenager. I called up immigration a few years back, and asked about whether I should get my visa transferred to a newer passport, or whether I should apply for a citizenship, and was told that unless I really wanted to vote then I shouldn't worry about it (the only thing denied to residents with an ILR, apparently).
It just didn't occur to me that one of my responsibilities (?) would be to keep up with current immigration legislation, just in case the rights I was initially awarded indefinitely would suddenly be changed in a way which is disruptive to my life. It kind of scares me to think that things like this can be changed on a whim. I don't really know what to think.
Unfortunately, you do have to do that. As a green card holder, I try to keep in touch with any potential changes in legislation. Incredibly boring since most often nothing new, but for example the Patriot Act added a bunch of new requirements for non-citizens.
>just in case the rights I was initially awarded indefinitely would suddenly be changed in a way which is disruptive to my life.
This can happen, and is not limited to immigration. Someone can build a business and face issues years later when the government adds new regulations. Couples adopt kids from abroad and then see the rules change and face a lot of troubles (happened to one of my friends who adopted from Russia). Laws change.
In the UK, voting aside, it's easier to live with a EU passport than with a UK one. And cheaper, by the way; renewing your UK passport is prohibitive.
What if the UK leaves the EU?
Life involves keeping a lot of different paperwork up to date: driver's licenses, passports, tax filings, car registration, etc. If you're an immigrant, keeping up those documents is a part of that too. I'm a naturalized citizen in the U.S., so I know dealing with the paperwork can be a pain. But the U.K. didn't pull a fast one on you. The BRP doesn't change your right to work--it's just a document you need proving your right to work. There are also other documents you can use: https://www.kent.ac.uk/hr-managementinformation/documents/el... (page 4).
And the BRP is not new. They've been rolling them out since 2008: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm.... All the U.K. changed this year was the policy of accepting an ILR stamp on an expired passport as an acceptable proof of work authorization. You can still transfer that stamp to a new passport and use that as acceptable proof, without getting a BRP.
Note: In the U.S., and probably in the U.K., even citizens have to have some sort of work authorization documents: http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-9.pdf. Usually a passport, or drivers license + social security card.
Only if you are outside of the country:
> You’re in the UK: You can’t transfer your visa to your new passport. Instead, you’ll need to apply for a biometric residence permit (BRP)
Other countries, such as Ireland have a similar card (it's called the GNIB card - it's not as expensive as the UK but not cheap as well - also delivered much faster)
"just in case the rights I was initially awarded indefinitely would suddenly be changed in a way which is disruptive to my life"
This happens to citizens as well in several ways.
Yeah, she was never working illegally.
In fact, assuming she'd started her job before April 2015 and her employer had properly verified that she had the right to work in the UK (which they could do by checking that she had ILR, even if it was in an expired passport), everything was fine. She wasn't working illegally, and her workplace had no reason to suspend her.
Mind you, she'd still need a BRP (or at least have applied for a BRP) to get a new job.
While I am a citizen now, I was an illegal immigrant for about 3(?) years. I worked in a bar and waited tables. One colleague in particular was very happy to complain about 'illegals', however he gave me a pass from his sweeping remarks because (as he said) "you're white and you speak English".
I'd also like to point out that this guy was claiming unemployment money, not paying taxes, and likely having the gov paying in some form for his STD treatments.
When I started the process for temporary work permit, green-card, then citizenship; it was no picnic either. Bureaucracy is intense (even for native English speaker). You pay out of pocket for all application fees (which is fine, but many people seem to think you're leeching on government services). I think in aggregate it amounted to about $2500. I also voluntarily payed estimated back taxes.
I'm not sure this comment is helpful or informative. With the rhetoric coming out of GOP presidential candidates I just think its important for people to be reminded that the vast majority of are descended from immigrants.
Both have vast, at times ridiculously worded forms to fill out, but the UK has also seemingly insatiable appetite for personal detail. When I was applying for a solo tour, they wanted to know personal history of my spouse, my child and my parents. Oh, and the 128 character form input to enter all your previous trips for 10 years.
It was also the only country ever that grilled me on the border regarding the purpose of my trip.
It's nothing personal. They're just weird.
I've been grilled several times when entering the US on journalist (I) visas in several decades of UK passports.
This is in spite of making dozens of short visits with an impeccable record, on scheduled flights, with hotels pre-booked, and more than sufficient funds. (Not to mention a UK family, job, house, pension fund and many other ties.)
I've seen enough journalists harassed on US entry to be extremely careful about doing everything correctly, and I'm always extremely polite. This usually works, but not every time. I appreciate that ultimately I have no rights and no way to defend myself.
Welcome to America records the experience of a journalist who neglected to get an I-visa. She was fingerprinted, body-searched, jailed and then deported. But, she says,
"I had travelled to the US on many occasions, both for work and pleasure, that I had, in fact, lived there as a permanent resident and that my husband was a US citizen, as was my New York-born daughter, all fell on deaf ears."
She notes that "As documented by Reporters Without Borders and by the American Society of Newspaper Editors (Asne) in letters to Colin Powell and Tom Ridge, cases such as mine are part of a systemic policy of harassing media representatives from 27 friendly countries whose citizens - not journalists! - can travel to the US without a visa, for 90 days."
It's akin to the US government saying "Hey, you can live here and come and go as you please, but in order to make a living, you've gotta fork over more money."
It's a sad state of affairs, one which is driven by the political climate which is in turn driven by the right wing media's hate machine. It certainly doesn't make me very proud to be British.
What is doubly interesting to me, is that because there are no exit checks at the border, there are no reliable statistics for net migration -- immigration minus the British (and other foreign nationals) that leave the country every year. So the panic-machine gets it's statistical fuel with every passing year, despite it not being adjusted for emigration, and all the while ignoring the measurable benefits that increased immigration is bringing with it.
Much of the rest of it is directed against EU nationals, who have a right to be here so long as we're in the EU. If the UK ever does leave the EU, immigration will be cited as a key reason.
Moreover, we fought off an attempt at imposing national ID cards, but the government is clearly going to bring them back in by imposing them on immigrants first.
(The "super premium" home visit visa service is clearly there for the benefit of the wealthy foreigners that pump the London property market and such like.)
Living (semi)permanently for years in any country on a visa seems kinda foolish to me, in the end you are the citizen of another country.
I know a few people who settled elsewhere in the EU and now consider themselves "citizens". Yeah, no, you're just a resident and could be kicked out or at least have a lot of issues (case in point) if politics change.
Just make it really permanent by applying for citizenship if you already lived there for 10 years and intend on living there for the next 5+ years, imo...
But it would still settle all your worries for the future, I presume.
Not everybody is willing to adopt another citizenship just like that. First of all not everybody can have dual citizenship (I have no idea if she can, she did not say which citizen she is) secondly it comes with certain requirements. It costs money and it requires you to swear your allegiance to that country, not everybody is willing to do. It'a also expensive and you need to pass tests. Not everybody has time and money for that.
> Living (semi)permanently for years in any country on a visa seems kinda foolish to me, in the end you are the citizen of another country.
How so? This should be the most natural thing in the world as all countries people immigrate to have provisions that allow you to stay in the country without being a citizen. Without that many people would be much worse of as giving up citizenship can have severe punishments (expatriate taxes for instance).
Perhaps I'm ignorant, but isn't that merely a ceremonial procedure?
Whether you keep that promise or not is up to you, but obviously most people (hopefully) don't just throw promises around and actually feel like it's a big commitment...
Not at all if you are male and under conscription age as you will need to do military service. (Also more theoretically it affects a country going to war.)
Seems like a better option than mucking around with visas and residence/work permits. I mean, this ILR gave them right of abode (if I understand correctly), and now they changed the laws so they can't work legally without a new document.
What guarantees do they have that requirements for permanent residence won't change again in the future?
First Japan requires you to renounce your old citizenship. Not a huge problem, but it means that I would need to get a tourist visa to visit my family in Canada. Since I currently have a visa for Japan, it is easy for me to leave Japan, enter Canada and return to Japan. If I were a Japanese citizen it becomes more difficult in practice.
Also, as a Canadian citizen I am legally allowed to work in Canada if, by some stroke of hard luck, I was unable to find work in Japan. Also, due to the free trade agreement with the US, I can work in the US. Also, due to the fact that I am a commonwealth citizen with British ancestry, I can work in the UK (which I did recently). All of that disappears if I become a Japanese citizen.
And what do I get in return? I can vote in local elections. And I can't be deported.
Although it is naive, it's easy to think "I have a visa and up to this point, I have had no problems at all with the Japanese government. My spouse is Japanese, so surely they won't kick me out, right?" It's easy to think that there are lots of drawbacks with no benefits.
But if I am really honest with myself, what would I do if I got kicked out of Japan? I would be seriously unhappy. This is my home and I never want to leave. If I feel that way, I should try to get citizenship, no matter what inconvenience that entails.
Of course, I think I've got another 9 years before I can apply, so I have a long time to think about it (I lived here before, but when I went to the UK, I had to restart the timer :-P )
Would getting a UK citizenship pose any similar problems?
For me UK citizenship would mostly provide upside because I can be dual citizen. It would give me everything and allow me to work anywhere in Europe (until UKIP has their way, of course). Oddly, it has some downside because with an ancestry entry permit (which is what I used to work in the UK previously), it is very easy to get a UK visa for my wife (who is Japanese). If I was a citizen, it is actually slightly more difficult (more expensive, more hoops to jump). Such is the maze of international visas.
The OP was of Argentinian decent so given the Falklands war, I don't know what the status is for dual citizenship with the UK (a quick Google search didn't help me).
Basically you can't generalize, but I think you are generally correct that if you intend to stay in a country forever you should consider citizenship very seriously. Living abroad is an eye opening experience. You have to really understand that you are a guest in the country and are subject to whatever whims they may have (with no say on your part). Paying taxes, being a good neighbour, providing benefit to the host country does not mean anything.
You could run into this as a citizen in the U.S. At least when I worked for the federal government, I had to show either a passport or social security card. If you let your passport expire and had lost you social security card, you couldn't work until you got a new one.
Also, the whole "the application is all about terrorism" thing is bullshit. Here is the application: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm.... There are three yes/no questions, in a 22-page form, about terrorism. They're next to questions about your criminal convictions, and whether you've been accused of participating in genocide.
You left out that this is new since April 2015.
//EDIT: this is how other european countries do it. You get this card which lives independent of your passport: http://www.aupair-worldwide.de/_gfx/news/246_1.jpg
The system with a visa attached to a passport was stupid, and having a separate document that lives independently from the passport makes much more sense. It looks like they changed the rules to make it easier, now unfortunately previous immigrants have to be made aware of this and comply. In the end, it is making everyone life easier I think.
Not knowing anything about visa's, is it normal for your visa status not to be copied over to a new passport on renewal?
Perhaps lilula was using a different form?
0 - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
Last year I had my passport stolen while I was travelling in Italy. Getting a passport issued when you are living outside the UK can take months, so I decided to go back to my parents. As the UK is outside the schengen-area I wasn't able to travel there without a passport, so had to book an appointment at the British Consulate in Milano. Three days later I turned up and they issued me an 'Emergency Passport', this is pretty much the same as a normal passport except smaller as it is for a single trip, and costs £95 [0].
When I got back to the UK I booked an appointment, the earliest they had was 4 weeks later (you can't get a replacement for a lost or stolen passport under the 1-day service). On the day I travelled up to London (~£50 by train), paid another £103, came home and waited a week for it to be delivered.
Earlier this year I got married (outside the UK and my current home country) and needed to get a "Certificate of no impediment" to say I am legally able to get married. On the gov.uk website it says I can do this at the consulate nearest to where I live, but they said I needed to do it at the consulate nearest to where I intended to get married.
So off I went there, handed in the form and paid the £65 fee. This then got displayed somewhere for a week so people can oppose it if needed (not that anyone in this country knew me...), and then I went back, paid another £65 and got the certificate. I also needed to get my birth certificate legalised - which can only be done by sending it back to the UK...
[0] In the local currency at a rather poor exchange rate.
Enjoying my six figure salary and a rougly 34% tax rate (incl. National insurance).
... I am more used to 42-45%.
This is even more hilarious if you try to change your name in the UK. In most countries there are registrations where your names shows up, not so in the UK. You can change your name just by doing so. However there is a "deed poll" which makes it a bit more official though there is no requirement for the name change.
But that's the price you pay for not having a mandatory registry.
This is true in most common law jurisdictions, not just the UK [0].
To be honest, I find it all a bit baffling. I know so many people who have spent inordinate amounts of time and money to study in the UK, pay international university fees (which are really expensive!), work there professionally, pay taxes there, and generally pump money into the British economy, but at every turn the Home Office seems to say "why don't you just go back to where you came from?" Surely this is going to be bad for Britain in the long run, even in the most cynical actuarial terms (to say nothing of the cultural ones)?
When I married my wife (we both have different passports, neither of us are British) we decided to move to Austria, my country of origin because the situation in Britain looked problematic. She would have to apply to visas constantly to get into Schengen (as the UK is outside), the financial requirements for the household are sky-high (income of 18.600 GBP post taxes or access to 65.000 GBP on an account) and you would need to have that every 2.5 years. Money would not even be the problem, but the fear of this getting worse or that you might lose the job for some time really does with your brain. Especially the worry that if the UK would leave the EU, British citizenship would not help my wife either and we would again be left with different citizenships and different travel rules.
There's plenty of fantastic other countries to live in. No point wasting time with one that doesn't want filthy outsiders.
I also do not see any mention of it needed to get employment [2].
Having dealt with UK employment law indirectly I can see how your brother's (and subsequently your) employer might have gotten confused about the rules as they are not very clear (which just goes to show what a mess immigration law here is).
That being said, the whole system is unnecessarily expensive, bureaucratic and confusing. I am not sure how that necessarily makes it directly xenophobic though (there are many other government procedures that have a similar unnecessary complexity).
If you're not a citizen of the country you have to expect these changes in laws and regulations. What a group of politicians puts together, another can undo. Today liberals give "free" visas to "undocumented" immigrants, tomorrow conservatives will cancel them and deport them.
I am an immigrant myself and I do understand that until I fill all the criteria for citizenship I am not equal to the citizens of the country, that's just how it is. The only way to be sure that you won't have any trouble is to be a citizen.
Yeah, that's basically what her visa was supposed to be - when she was issued one by the UK government the government made a promise to grant her an indefinite right to stay in the UK and not require any further permissions. Except that they did. They introduced this new mechanism for all immigrants which means that she effectively lost what was given her by the government once, even though the government promised to never take it away. That's the problem.
Does the visa state "this visa is irrevocable, you will never have to do anything to be allowed to stay in the country, until the end of times, ever, we promise."? Maybe it does, and then I'm happy to be wrong.
In politics and legislation, there is no "promises", no "indefinite". Laws are the reflection of what society wants at a certain point in time - at least in functioning democracies. For everything, not just immigration.
I'm not saying it doesn't suck. I've had my fair share of dealing with immigration regulations and I know how awful it is, but it is foolish to think that a right to residency will never be questioned and subject to different rules. Only citizenship is definite.
I don't think this is true. She had Indefinite Leave to Remain. The Indefinite part of that just means that it didn't have an expiry date. Revokability has nothing to do with it.
(OTOH, Wikipedia tells me that an ILR is revokable on specific grounds, so perhaps revocation is limited. But that list can clear be changed by statute, and there's no promise that it won't be)