
How I ended up working illegally in the UK - robin_reala
https://medium.com/@lilula/how-i-ended-up-working-illegally-in-the-uk-fcdfa964be51
======
lilula
Original author of the article here.

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.

~~~
rayiner
> 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.

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...](https://www.kent.ac.uk/hr-
managementinformation/documents/eligibility-to-work/checking-eligibility-
guidance.pdf) (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...](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/118597/biometric-
permits-foreign.pdf). 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](http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-9.pdf).
Usually a passport, or drivers license + social security card.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> You can still transfer that stamp to a new passport and use that as
> acceptable proof, without getting a BRP.

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)

[https://www.gov.uk/transfer-visa](https://www.gov.uk/transfer-visa)

------
donohoe
For background, the US is not better than the UK in many respects - both from
public perception and bureaucracy/law.

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.

~~~
varjag
Never applied for residence to either country, but at some point had to obtain
entry visas for both. Have to say the UK certainly outdone its former colony
in bureaucracy dept :)

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.

~~~
scholia
> It was also the only country ever that grilled me on the border regarding
> the purpose of my trip.

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."

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/05/usa.weekend7](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/05/usa.weekend7)

------
leoedin
I wouldn't be surprised if this is all driven by the fact the government has
made campaign promises to reduce net immigration which they simply cannot
meet. They're unable to control immigration from the EU, so instead they're
turning up the bureaucracy and stumbling blocks on other immigration and
making it much harder for recent graduates to stay and work here.

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.

~~~
pjc50
This is exactly it. Not only that, but quite a lot of the anti-immigrant
sentiment is directed against Pakistani/Bangladeshi Muslims - who are quite
often second or third generation immigrants and therefore are full British
nationals. The spousal income requirement is targeted against people making
arranged marriages in those communities, for example.

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.)

------
prodmerc
Why not apply for British citizenship? She seems to fit all the criteria...

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...

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> Why not apply for British citizenship? She seems to fit all the criteria...

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).

~~~
witty_username
> swear your allegiance to that country

Perhaps I'm ignorant, but isn't that merely a ceremonial procedure?

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> Perhaps I'm ignorant, but isn't that merely a ceremonial procedure?

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.)

------
rayiner
It's worth actually reading up on the BRP. It doesn't change your visa status.
Rather, it's an identification requirement. In the UK, like in the U.S., you
have several ways to prove your work eligibility. One is with a passport
endorsed with a Visa. Another is a biometric residence card. This woman's
family let their passports expire without obtaining a BRP. There would have
been no need to pay extra for expedited processing if they had not let their
passport expire, or had obtained a BRP while their passports were valid.

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...](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/423220/TOC_Application_Form_04.pdf).
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.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> One is with a passport endorsed with a Visa. Another is a biometric
> residence card. This woman's family let their passports expire without
> obtaining a BRP

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](http://www.aupair-
worldwide.de/_gfx/news/246_1.jpg)

~~~
rayiner
They've been issuing them since at least 2013:
[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/261497/brp-
information-leaflet.pdf).

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
Seems like the issue there is that these are replacing the old system and now
people start to demand them.

------
lucaspiller
As a UK citizen (but no longer resident) it really baffles me how expensive
and complicated it is to get documentation from the government for seemingly
common place things.

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.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> 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...)

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.

~~~
desdiv
> 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.

This is true in most common law jurisdictions, not just the UK [0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_name#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_name#United_States)

------
the_mitsuhiko
The UK immigration rules are borderline bizarre at this point. I do not envy
anyone not from the EU trying to immigrate into the UK. You need to earn
really well and they can boot you from the country on so many grounds now,
that I can see this being a challenge for many.

~~~
_petronius
The hassle and expense of UK immigration law was one reason I moved to
Germany, even though I'd been living in London for about 8.5 years and was on
track (in another three or four, with at least two further visa applications
required) to get permanent residency.

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)?

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> The hassle and expense of UK immigration law was one reason I moved to
> Germany

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.

------
koyote
According to the government's own site, people on ILR without a BRP do not
need one at any time unless they are moving their visa to a different passport
[1].

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).

[1][https://www.gov.uk/biometric-residence-
permits](https://www.gov.uk/biometric-residence-permits)

[2][https://www.gov.uk/check-job-applicant-right-to-
work](https://www.gov.uk/check-job-applicant-right-to-work)

------
rwmj
I don't think this article is correct. Some workplaces are demanding BRP
because it's a way to shield themselves from liability and large fines if they
accidentally employ an "illegal immigrant", but it's not actually necessary
(yet - I'm sure it'll be made mandatory at some point in order to provide yet
more revenue and pointless bureaucracy). If you are self-employed you can
still just use ILR even in an expired passport. It's right that the whole
situation is opaque, expensive and stupid.

------
robk
It sucks they changed the rule retroactively. But why didn't you just get a
passport? Either now or then you'd be entitled to citizenship quite easily and
there's not really downside like different tax status or military service. I
went ILR to citizen a few years ago and it was pretty painless.

------
branchless
It's not about LIBOR and UK banks!

------
dudul
I don't want to come out as being insensitive, but what is the complain about
exactly? I was expecting more of an anecdote due to a quirk in the law, but it
ends up being a weird rant about how a change in policy somehow makes the
entirety of the UK hostile to immigrants.

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.

~~~
gambiting
You missed the entire point of the article. You know how the banknotes say "I
promise to pay the bearer on demand", which basically means that the Bank of
England promises to always pay you the amount stated on the banknote,no matter
how old it is?

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.

~~~
dudul
Based on your comment, I did get the point because this is exactly what I was
talking about.

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.

