
What happens if you mistakenly apply for British citizenship? - mpweiher
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/what-happens-if-you-mistakenly-apply-for-british-citizenship-instead-of-indefinite-leave-to-remain/
======
mmsimanga
I speak as an immigrant. I see a lot of comments not being too kind to people
who aren't welcoming of immigrants. As a person, I actually do understand. Not
everyone is going to like me. As an African I do wish some of this energy
would be directed to the African leaders that make their countries so terrible
that someone feels it is better to jump on a rickety boat in search of a
better life. These African "leaders" send their kids to school in the west,
they go to the west when sick. I wish all this energy against people who don't
want immigrants is directed at the people who made us immigrants in the first
place. My first choice is a return to my country.

~~~
tinktank
It's much easier to hate on an individual in front of you than a president,
policy, regime or country (and takes less effort). The bigger grind for me is
that the same countries (UK in particular) hammering citizens from those
countries welcome leaders with open arms and provide them with refuge, the
ability to buy sheltered properties etc. The UKG loves nothing or nobody but
money, I just wish they would be upfront about it so their policies were
consistent with their actions.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
I think you can also look at things aside from money. Education and wealth
also tend to correlate with individuals that are able to peacefully integrate
into a society. Granted there are exceptions -- Osama Bin Laden came from a
billionaire family and was well educated, but they are indeed the exceptions.
By contrast people that are impoverished, have little education, and
especially that may hold more extreme religious views or have different
cultural views than the countries they're migrating to, can result in major
issues.

For instance in Germany the numbers vary from 75%-90% of immigrants expected
to be unable to find a job within 5 years. And crime among migrant has also
been increasing. This is something that has been neglected in most left
leaning media though the BBC did run a piece earlier this year [1]. As the
article states, in one area regarded as "an average state" violent crime
increased by more than 10% in a single year, with more than 90% of that
increase attributable to migrants -- with migrants being twice as likely as
German nationals to face reports of violent crime.

I mean these are unpleasant facts, but they are absolutely true facts. This
doesn't mean you should refuse all migration or even that migration is bad.
But it does mean that you can't simply claim selective migration policies are
just about money. Germany took in well over a million migrants. With the vast
majority of these individuals not finding work in society that means society
will be paying for them. How much is a fair amount of money to care for these
individuals? Each $10,000 costs Germany around $10 billion per year. There's
some irony referencing money here, but the point is that if you carried these
policies out, without end, you'd eventually destroy your own nation, hurting
countless individuals in the process, all because you were reluctant to say
no.

\---

What I don't understand is why nobody wants to consider this issue
objectively. I expect the above is mostly downvote bait, but that's
ridiculous. It's like people on the right want absolutely no migrants because
all migrants are evil. And people on the left want open borders because all
migrants are amazing and loving people that will integrate fully and
peacefully with no meaningful negative impacts whatsoever. This sort of
dichotomy is idiotic, but people on both sides are so scared of being seen as
being partial to the 'other side' that they become increasingly radicalized
meeting in some horseshoe of mutual stupidity. Bah to it all.

[1] - [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-42557828](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42557828)

~~~
vilmosi
> For instance in Germany the numbers vary from 75%-90% of immigrants expected
> to be unable to find a job within 5 years

Given 12% of Germany is foreign born and the country has 3.5% unemployment,
something feels off about these numbers and conclusions.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
If somehow it was not clear, the numbers were referencing (in the case of
employment) and being driven (in the case of violence) by the recent surge in
refugees Germany took in. The 75% comes from Aydan Özoğuz, commissioner for
integration, refugees and integration in Germany [1]. The upper end comes from
recognition that they're taking an optimistic view of things. As of the start
of 2017 Germany had taken in 1.2 million migrants, and from government numbers
34,000, or 2.8%, were employed, with a fair chunk of those in temp jobs. [2]
Getting to 25% employment from there in 5 years is perhaps not impossible, but
it's _extremely_ optimistic.

[1] -
[https://www.ft.com/content/022de0a4-54f4-11e7-9fed-c19e27000...](https://www.ft.com/content/022de0a4-54f4-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f)

[2] - [https://www.thelocal.de/20161219/so-far-
only-34000-refugees-...](https://www.thelocal.de/20161219/so-far-
only-34000-refugees-have-found-jobs)

~~~
vilmosi
No, it's not clear, because you're talking about refugees in particular vs
immigration in general. Two groups subject to very different laws and
circumstances.

------
nutjob2
This is par for the course in the UK right now. The Tories have been pandering
to the xenophobes and racists for some time now an their "hostile environment"
for immigrants isn't restricted to ones who are doing something illegal,
instead it seems to be targeted toward making life miserable, if not
impossible for any immigrants wether they're doing the right thing or not.
They have no problems breaking their own rules and aggressively using the
courts (appealing cases and then withdrawing their claims the day before the
hearing, for instance).

In the case of the Windrush Generation, who just happen to be black, the Home
Office destroyed archives that contained proof of eligibility of residence,
against their own rules, that caused people to become destitute and/or
deported when the government wrongly took away their rights:

[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43782241](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43782241)

This poor guy should be thankful that the government didn't deem him a
terrorist and ruin his life completely:

[https://qz.com/1275866/the-british-government-is-using-
simpl...](https://qz.com/1275866/the-british-government-is-using-simple-tax-
errors-as-a-reason-to-deport-migrants/)

~~~
ppod
Look at this poll:

[https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/docume...](https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dqjh8rbx2e/InternalResults_180425_Immigration.pdf)

The voters of all parties support these policies. What is "pandering" in a
democracy? The people are xenophobes, they are getting what they want.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
This raises an interesting question: what happens to a democratic society when
"the will of the people" embraces principles and ideas that are profoundly
anti-democratic?

I mean, it's hard to find a definition of "democracy" that would satisfy
everyone but, intuitively, xenophobia and open hostility to visitors who
clearly mean well and are contributing to the well-being of the community
(Lucas was a Cambridge alumnus and in employment when his adventures started)
seems to run counter to every reasonable interpretation of "democratic".

~~~
chrisseaton
I think you're loading 'democracy' up with some extra values there that aren't
really part of the definition. Democracy just means governed by the people. It
doesn't mean liberal, or enlightened, or progressive, or open to visitors, or
anything like that. Just governed by the people. The people can be left wing
or right wing, progressive or regressive, whatever.

~~~
charlesism
Yes. Not every form of democracy is a liberal democracy. In a liberal
democracy, some entity such as the judicial system is supposed to prevent the
rest of government from tyrannizing minorities.

Democracy protects the majority from a minority (ie: nobility). Liberalism
protects minorities (eg: people an with unpopular philosophy, religious view,
ethnicity, language) from the majority.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
This again depends on a definition of "liberalism" accepted by all, but I find
the term "illiberal" or "non-liberal democracy" (i.e. the opposite of a
liberal democracy) to be very difficult to interpret. Is it a democracy in
which people have the right to vote, but their liberties are not protected by
the law? But- the right to vote _is_ a liberty. And then again, how come
people voted to have their liberties not protected by law? What are they,
idiots?

In any case, I can't really recall any state etc that has gone down in history
as being an "illiberal democracy"!

~~~
repolfx
Don't try and parse the term literally, the term is a contradiction - there's
no such thing as an "illiberal democracy" for the reasons you specify. People
who use that word simply mean "democracies where my personal views on things
like immigration don't win".

The term illiberal democracy is an especially empty one because more or less
any decision can be phrased in terms of positive liberties - e.g.
"restrictions on immigration preserve the liberty of voters to enjoy and
propagate their own culture".

------
shripadk
While the Home Office in UK was vigorously trying its best to throw Lucas out,
the same Home Office in UK is trying its best to keep economic offenders like
Vijay Mallya and Lalit Modi from being deported:
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/india-asks-
brita...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/india-asks-britain-to-
deport-vijay-mallya/)

"The Home Office said the suspension of Mr Mallya's passport was a matter for
Indian authorities and declined to comment on the individual case, citing its
policy of neither confirming nor denying if any extradition request has been
received until an arrest is made."

It's been 2 years since India sent a formal extradition request. It has been
rejected twice.

Just to explain the absolute ridiculousness of this entire exercise to those
who aren't aware: The case is still pending in UK court and the defence is
actually arguing about the cleanliness of Indian jails and if adequate toilet
facilities are provided for a fugitive:

[https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-
affairs/gi...](https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/give-
us-mallya-we-ll-give-him-the-toilet-he-wants-modi-govt-to-uk-
court-118073101568_1.html)

With this action of the Home Office, it has been made abundantly clear that
the "human rights" of an economic fugitive far outweighs the human rights of
Lucas.

~~~
raverbashing
"its best", not "it's best"

~~~
shripadk
Nice catch! Fixed :)

------
pavlov
Anti-immigration people in various countries often argue that they just want
to prevent “bad ones” coming in, they’re not looking to throw out the “good
ones”.

The reality is that there’s no leniency for perceived good immigrants as these
people imagine, and it’s just getting worse as immigration policies are
tightened across Europe. Officials are under pressure to refuse as many
applications as they can, and it’s easiest in cases like this where you can
hide behind a legality. The “good ones” are the first to suffer.

~~~
nutjob2
This is not Europe wide. I have current and first hand experience of two EU
countries in this regard and nothing has changed in the last couple of years.

In any system mistakes are made on both sides of an application and most
countries have reasonable systems to resolve them, but in the case of the UK
authorities, they are no longer acting in good faith.

~~~
ethbro
_> no longer acting in good faith_

This seems to be the greatest legal casualty of anti-immigrant rhetoric --
cover for bureaucratic apathy.

Maybe the author of the initial decision acted with malicious intent.

But I'd bet they just didn't care and certified it that way so as to not have
the case boomerang back to them. And the political climate gave them
flexibility to do so.

The only defense against this seems like a more robust, independent version of
a Dean of Students, albeit for everyone interfacing with the legal system.
Empowered to bring action against egregious ethical or moral breaches.

The legal profession seems to have no inclination to weed out those lacking
ethical standards, so tragedies like Aaron Schwartz go unpunished. Carmen
Ortiz, who oversaw the prosecution as US A, now practices law in the private
sector. [1]

I get that handling lots of cases with limited resources is difficult. But
when you fuck up, and then insist you were right rather than act with some
compassion? There should be consequences.

[1] [http://www.andersonkreiger.com/attorney/carmen-m-
ortiz/](http://www.andersonkreiger.com/attorney/carmen-m-ortiz/)

------
tinktank
Can't say I'm surprised by this outcome at all. The British government has
long since been screwing over would be immigrants in fees, bureaucracy and
rules. The point to note is -- had he not been an American with resources, and
instead, say a Somali refugee, the outcome would have been very different and
we'd never have heard about it.

For those of you interested in how validated legal extortion can become, go
look at the VISA and naturalisation fees the UK government charges.

~~~
xaranke
As someone who recently applied for a UK Visa, I was shocked that it cost
around $120 for 6 months. A comparable US visa for 10 years costs around $160.

~~~
cm2187
That's nothing. Citizenship costs over £1000.

~~~
xaranke
Right, but that is a one-time fee. This is every time you want to visit the
UK. Still expensive though.

------
ppod
I moved to the UK seven years ago, and have clearly noticed a change in the
time I've been here. It wasn't perfect to begin with, but there is now a clear
popular attitude against non-British people. It's worse against non-white
people and eastern europeans, but there is also a level of general xenophobia.
Of course, this is not the prevailing situation in London and cosmopolitan
cities, but it is prevalent among the electorate, and the government and civil
service is slowly starting to reflect that preference.

I know people living in London will read this and claim it isn't true, but
remember I'm talking about the country as a whole. Immigration is consistently
ranked as the most important issue in opinion polls, and a large majority
favour admitting "none" or "a few" from most countries.
[https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk...](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-
public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/)

~~~
vixen99
If you look at the graph here [https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-
net-migration-st...](https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-
migration-statistics) you can see migration levels consistently rising from
1975 to 2017 with 250,000 expected this year. Is there any level of migration
for which critics would not be perjoratively labelled xenophobes by you?

The definition of xenophobe is 'one unduly fearful of what is foreign and
especially of people of foreign origin' it could be that folk are not 'unduly
fearful' in the UK where to mention only a few problems related to population
density, there is an acute housing shortage, roads are clogged and the
National Health Service is close to breakdown in many areas.

~~~
DanBC
> and the National Health Service is close to breakdown in many areas.

That is entirely because the government has chosen to defund the NHS. It has
nothing, and I mean really nothing, to do with immigrants using the NHS.

All the research we have shows us that immigration does not put the NHS under
strain, that immigration could help pay for the NHS if the government chose to
correctly tax the population and correctly fund the NHS, that the NHS cannot
run without immigration (we have nowhere near enough doctors, nurses, and all
the other varied allied health profesionals and we must source staff from
abroad.)

------
Someone1234
I have experience with both the UK and US immigration systems. I agree, it is
very easy with how complicated the processes can be to make mistakes, even
seemingly big ones, just by misunderstanding a single requirement. Even non-
immigration lawyers make serious errors.

> Lucas made his application for naturalisation on 14 May 2014, a couple of
> weeks before the expiry of his visa.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but neither indefinite leave to remain OR
naturalization would be processed in "a couple of weeks." So even if he had
filled the right application he might have ran into problems.

As the article points out, indefinite leave does technically extend their
existing visa (whereas citizenship does not), but in both cases you have the
same issue: If you're denied then you get deported since your visa has
expired.

They should have extended their existing visa first, only then apply for
indefinite leave to remain or if eligible citizenship. Otherwise you've built
a house of cards, which is one denial away from deportation.

> So instead of Lucas’s application being promptly returned to him [...] It
> took eight months for him to receive a refusal of his application with the
> above explanation

That exceeds the government's estimates, but they tell you before you apply it
can take 6+ months:

[https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-visas-and-
imm...](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-visas-and-
immigration/about-our-services)

They don't even look at the application until it is processed, and there's a
huge backlog. Plus they cannot deny until the application is fully vetted,
otherwise they might miss another avenue for acceptance, or it might be a data
problem their side.

Essentially the article is complaining that the other applicants that applied
before him were processed before him.

It is unfortunate what happened to him after the initial mistake, and I won't
defend that, but his mistake wasn't only applying for the wrong thing, he also
left it until the last possible moment.

~~~
comex
> Essentially the article is complaining that the other applicants that
> applied before him were processed before him.

Only if you assume that the Home Office's capacity is fixed. I don't know any
of the details myself, but presumably they could have avoided creating such
long backlog by hiring more employees.

~~~
tssva
Since the Home Office is a government agency which operates on a fixed budget
it is unlikely they can just hire more employees as the number of applications
rises. They can request a budget increase for the following year so they can
hire more employees then, but the decision to approve the request is a
political one outside of their hands.

~~~
stevesimmons
Home Office delays are a deliberate political choice...

Home Office visa requests all require the payment of substantial fees,
certainly enough to pay for the staff to process them. So you would have
thought staffing levels would increase in line with applications without any
recourse to annual fixed budgets. (Actually from memory, over the last few
years, pax numbers are up 20%+ and staff numbers down 15%...)

Similarly for Heathrow etc not having enough immigration officers to process
incoming arrivals... I estimate the average passenger costs less than £2 to
process [1], while outgoing flights pay Air Passenger Duty at rates starting
from £13 per passenger (economy/short haul) and £78 (economy/long haul). More
than enough to pay for higher staffing levels.

[1] £2 is my quick estimate, based on 130m passenger movements in 2016, Border
Force having 7670 staff in 2016-17, with annual FTE costs around £32k for base
salary, NI, and associated variable employment costs.

~~~
tssva
Just because an agency charges a fee which covers or exceeds their costs
doesn't mean they get to keep those fees. They may go to the government's
general revenue fund or they may be used within the Home Office to fund other
activities within the agency. Even if the fees are directly returned to the
immigration agencies with the Home Office they still may not be authorized to
hire additional staff without prior approval through the budgeting process.
Most governments don't like to give agencies unfettered ability to increase
agency staff.

I have no idea what the situation is with the Home Office. They very well may
have the required authority to increase staff but to assume they do doesn't
seem logical since this is against the norm for government agencies.

------
brm
It shouldn't be this hard in the first place...

Want a strong country? Let anyone who puts 50,000 of your currency in a local
bank and has a college degree stay there.

I shouldn't need 250K and have a business plan, or 2 million pounds to invest.
I certainly shouldn't have to bond myself to a corporation or get married to
be allowed to live there and pay taxes. Ban me from public government benefits
for 5 years until I'm a citizen, sure...

But you should welcome the young, educated, and reasonably stable. Who else is
going to eventually pay to support everyone else?

Really though further ax to grind... How is it that in 2018 the easiest way to
move countries is still marriage?!

~~~
xaranke
Some countries are starting to buck the trend; most notably Canada with
Express Entry.

~~~
victords
Can you elaborate on the recent developments regarding the Express entry in
Canada?

~~~
xaranke
Express Entry is Canada's program for granting permanent residency to workers
in skills shortage areas (sort of like a H1B and Green Card combo).

It's a points-based system, so there's no guessing involved whether you'll
make it; if you don't, you can easily see how you might improve your score.

You can apply from anywhere without first having spent time in Canada as a
student or worker (though you do get more points if you do so), aren't
dependent on an employer filing for you, and jump straight to permanent
residency (akin to Green Card or Indefinite Leave to Remain) within 6 months,
which is quicker than the 1+ year Green Card takes.

Unlike the Green Card, where you are from does not determine whether you'll
get it; only your points do.

So far it seems to be a huge success; by providing a fair and predictable
immigration policy for high-skilled labor instead of one fueled by FUD as in
the US.

In general it seems like a system that is designed to help you succeed instead
of trying to make you fail.

Edit: you asked about recent developments, Canada just introduced a visa
called Global Talent Stream for tech workers that allows you to start working
in Canada in 2 weeks, which is crazy-fast for a work visa. You then get more
points under Express Entry and might be able to apply sooner.

------
jacknews
Bureaucrats the world over are frustrating.

It's surprising in some ways, since the thing that distinguishes government
from the private sector is that government is optimized for safety, equality,
impartiality, etc, rather than for profit.

But perhaps the way they achieve such impartiality is by codifying absolutely
every detail, and then you end up with situations like this one.

Stepping back though, the British immigration system is indeed quite hostile.
Possibly one reason may be that once you are 'in', you get automatic access to
a huge array of valuable state services; free healthcare, schooling, etc. If
you've ever lived in places that have none of these, you can really appreciate
how valuable they are.

And I think a 'solution' to that issue could be to have stricter controls on
who gets access to all those services, but be less strict about who can come
and stay - based on skills perhaps.

And while they're at it they could make it easier for Britons who have married
foreigners and had kids abroad, to be able to repatriate - as it is, it's more
than a little difficult. I understand the rules are to prevent some the gross
abuses that have occurred, eg recently-established Britons bringing in
uneducated "wives" from foreign rural villages and so on, but they also deeply
affect more legitimate situations.

------
CPLX
I mean the British bureaucracy has an extremely well chronicled tradition of
Kafkaesque obstinacy and causing chaos via slavish adherence to rules that
long predates this issue right. I believe Douglas Adams used this fact as the
basis for a series of books.

~~~
andybak
(After finding out his home was scheduled for demolition and being told he'd
had ample time to file a complaint)

“But the plans were on display…”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked
filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying
‘Beware of the Leopard.”

------
rdl
If the wait for review/decision is going to be months, there really should be
some kind of pre submission check to test validity. This could be done by
one’s lawyer usually, but an automated screening and/or immediate cursory
validation by government seems like it would make sense. Maybe only extend
validity of visa during processing if it passes the validation.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
Automated screening? For a process that can result in the immediate detention
and removal of persons when the system makes a mistake? I'm afraid this
doesn't sound like such a great idea, although I'm sure the Home Office would
love it.

~~~
rdl
"Is this form complete?" "Do you X, Y, Z?" when it is known that those things
are what are required, etc.

------
Silixon
Tuttle or Buttle, was it?

------
accnumnplus1
Much mumbo jumbo in the comments. Immigration is seldom a problem anywhere.
Excessive immigration is usually a problem everywhere. The coming of Britain's
and Europe's immigration backlash was obvious nearly 20 years ago. Surprise,
surprise, people like their culture and their homeland. Who would've thought?

Something a European in London said yesterday: "We're moving outside London.
I'm not a racist, but I'd at least like to have some white neighbours."
Immigration is bringing in as many of the people you're targeting for not
liking immigration.

I've met countless anti-Britain immigrants; not anti as a result of living
here and having bad experiences, but perfectly comfortable people who simply
think their country's approach to things is better. Some were friends for as
long as I could stand it. If you go around talking down the country I live in
and need to be succesful then you're poisonous. Constructive criticism fine;
poisonous, get lost.

The pro-immigration groups' big mistake was pushing too hard, too fast, giving
no time for the needed gradual adjustment, which might not have worked anyway,
but had a better chance than bossing the natives around, forcing them to do
things they didn't want, and then insulting them. What kind of half-witted
strategy is that?

~~~
xaranke
> forcing them to do things they didn't want

Can you elaborate on this? As someone who just visited London, the opposite
seems to be true at least in the service industry; most wait staff I
encountered were non-British.

~~~
accnumnplus1
Not sure what's unclear. Some people are pro-immigration, and some are anti-
immigration, and some don't give a fuck, and some are undecided. The London
wait staff you encountered, and the 65+ million people you didn't encounter,
the overwhelming majority of whom are not wait staff, and most of whom live
outside London, are all somewhere on that spectrum of opinion. The words you
selected, obviously, I think, refer to those who are anti-immigration. If
you're willing, you probably don't need to be forced, right? So, unlikely I
was referring to the pro-immigration people. The first words of that paragraph
are "The pro-immigration groups' big mistake", which hints at the pro-
immigration stance not working out too well, so clearly there's push back from
people who are anti-immigration, and those are the people who have been forced
to accept immigration they didn't want. And my point was something like this:
[http://www.longlongtimeago.com/once-upon-a-
time/fables/from-...](http://www.longlongtimeago.com/once-upon-a-
time/fables/from-aesop/the-north-wind-and-the-sun/) If your knowledge of the
country is so entirely bankrupt I don't think you should be wading into this.
Harsh, maybe, but fair.

~~~
xaranke
Thanks for the clarification. I interpreted this as British people being
forced into things they didn't want to do (such as menial jobs) but I realize
now that you meant that they were forced into the decision of allowing
immigration that as you rightly pointed out they didn't want.

Also I'm not sure if you intended your comment to be patronizing, but it does
read that way. Thanks again for the clarification.

~~~
accnumnplus1
"things they didn't want to do (such as menial jobs) " \-- I didn't say
anything of the sort, there was nothing to interpret, that's pure projection
on your part, so you're calling the British arrogant and lazy. Patronising,
yes, I thought you needed it.

------
jarym
There are two* UK government departments that are full of incompetent decision
makers and absolutely no culture of common sense or doing the right thing:

1\. The Home Office

2\. HMRC (aka Her Majesty’s arseholes)

This doesn’t surprise me. I honestly am begining to think that change will
only come once senior civil servants meet a dose of mob justice. The public’s
tolerance is at breaking point imo.

*at minimum

~~~
DanBC
HMRC are better than DWP.

------
blattimwind
"Indefinite leave to remain" sounds like some almost Orwellian concoction of
meaninglessness to me.

How exactly do you get from "permission to stay in the country" (aha, it means
one has the permission to stay in the country) to "indefinite leave to remain"
(uhm... to remain here, I need to leave indefinitely?)

~~~
Rexxar
Meta comment: "blattimwind" comment is grey at the moment. What is the point
to down vote someone that has just misunderstood an arguably ambiguous
expression ?

~~~
nkurz
In addition to providing feedback to author of a comment, downvotes also
establish the order of comments on the page. If a comment is based on a simple
misunderstanding, it's unlikely to result in productive conversation, and thus
it may be a benefit to the group to deemphasize that comment to encourage
others to focus their attention elsewhere.

------
curiousgal
> _" indefinite leave to remain"_

My brain breaks whenever I read this. Like who the fuck came up with this
name?

~~~
dogma1138
Leave means permission, going on leave means you go with permission and why
AWOL stands for absence without leave.

“Old English lēaf ‘permission’, of West Germanic origin; related to lief and
love.”

------
jwilk
What a weird submission title ("Mistakenly apply for British citizenship
instead of indefinite leave to remain").

The original title ("What happens if you mistakenly apply for British
citizenship instead of indefinite leave to remain?") is probably too long for
HN, but I'd rather shorten it to:

"What happens if you mistakenly apply for British citizenship?"

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
The context is important: mistakenly applying for citizenship _in what
circumstances_ , _as opposed to what_?

------
ConfSibi
There are legitimate and rational reasons for not wanting a large influx of
poor immigrants into a developed nation.

Using the US as an example, in the 1800's and early-to-mid 1900's, American
work was largely labor intensive agricultural and factory based work. Labor
was in huge demand, and as a result the middle class was able to thrive. Today
that is no longer the case, and a massive rift between rich and poor is
developing as the middle class collapses without an economic foundation to
support its existence, this being the labor intensive industries that have
largely disappeared in modern Western nations. This has been the development
path of all developed nations.

As modern economies are already struggling with worsening labor conditions for
the majority of their people and the resulting stresses on social programs, it
makes little sense to open immigration to the impoverished masses.

This is a realist perspective. Denying the economic factors at play here will
only lead to increased socio economic tension in developed societies at a time
when such tension is already at a high water mark in modern history.

~~~
stupidcar
This isn't "realist", it's the usual clichés and lies that are always
propagated by people trying to justify anti-immigrant sentiment.

It perpetuates the falsehood that immigrants stress social programmes. In
fact, social programmes in Western countries are stressed by the shifting
demographics of their indigenous populations, and require immigrants to prop
them up.

Social programmes like state pensions and healthcare were created in an age
when Western countries had large working-age populations, and relatively small
numbers of older, non-working people. However, the decrease in fertility and
increase in life expectancy across the West has flipped this. There are too
many older people, and not enough indigenous tax-paying citizens to support
them.

Politicians in Western countries saw this problem coming in the 1990s. Since
cutting social programmes that affect the elderly is politically impossible,
they realised the only solution was to liberalise their immigration policies.
Immigrants are statistically younger, healthier, harder-working, and pay more
taxes than the average indigenous citizen. As a bonus, many of them return to
their home country when they get older, so you don't need to pay for their
pensions / healthcare.

Ironically, old people in these countries then decided, or were persuaded,
that they disliked immigration. So they started supporting parties with anti-
immigrant policies, even though this was totally against their economic self-
interest. The result is a political paradox that no Western politician has
been able to unravel, although populists have made hay exploiting it.

------
personjerry
I don’t think the government did anything wrong; The rules aren’t meant to be
bent, and if Lucas made a mistake in filing the wrong paperwork, it absolutely
makes sense for the consequences to follow. In these serious legal matters,
you need to seek counsel. This article attempts to paint a picture of the poor
child, but the law was clear, and any emotional appeal should be invalid.

~~~
hprotagonist
_I don 't know how to communicate this, or even if it is possible. But the
question of justice has concerned me greatly of late. And I say to any
creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are
absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.

Jean-Luc Picard_

~~~
jacknews
Actually laws can be absolute, if they're detailed enough. Obviously almost
impossible in practice, but maybe ...

But the problem with allowing "discretion" in laws, is _whose_ discretion.

And there seems to be a recent govt enthusiasm for the meta issue of which
laws to enforce, and how vigorously, which is certainly a concern.

------
waxwander
"I have essentially had the most important years in my career development
taken away from me."

This guy certainly has a sense of drama.

