- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, Administrator
Unfortunately, the two cases are not comparable. The court case announced today hinged on the fact that the law gave an exemption to people married by the Church of England. This was clearrly discriminatory -- treating one group favourably based on religion.tvt wrote:I guess the same fate could apply to the ILR increase from 4 to 5.
How can marring in Church ensure its a not a sham marriage. This is clear discrimination. It reminded me of a Bollywood rubbish 'Ramji London Wale' where this guy converts to christanity to be married by the Church to fool the Home Office, who are already a bunch of fools.FromThere2Here wrote:Unfortunately, the two cases are not comparable. The court case announced today hinged on the fact that the law gave an exemption to people married by the Church of England. This was clearrly discriminatory -- treating one group favourably based on religion.tvt wrote:I guess the same fate could apply to the ILR increase from 4 to 5.
If anything, this will lead to more tabloid stories about the UK's supposed 10,000-per-year sham marriages, further whipping up anti-immigration sentiment.
Isn' t it discriminatory that if you are married to a briton you will get ILR quickly and if you are on HSMP/work Permit visa, you ll have to wait for 5 years.Timeperiod to qualify for ILR should be equal for all catagories leading to settlement.Unfortunately, the two cases are not comparable. The court case announced today hinged on the fact that the law gave an exemption to people married by the Church of England. This was clearrly discriminatory -- treating one group favourably based on religion.
Actually an immigrant married to a Briton gets ILR in 2 years, and once they have ILR is eligible for Naturalisation as soon as they have been legally in the country for 3 years, to include any time before the spouse visa. Just to annoy you further.Why should an immigrant married to a briton get ILR in 3 years while the one on WP/HSMP has to wait 5 years...
Actually, immigration laws do affect the citizens of the country concerned so they certainly should take an interest. I notice that Britain (like Australia and a few European countries) is beginning to badger it's young women to have more babies because of economic concerns over an aging population. Obviously having babies is not high on the list of priorities for young women and indeed, for most of us it's not a practicality.Marie B wrote:.... Did you hear any complaints from BC's? No, because the majority are not interested in laws that don't affect them.
In the US it's 3 years, for 2 years you get a conditional green card with becomes an unconditional one following which after a year you can apply for naturalisation.Marie B wrote:Actually an immigrant married to a Briton gets ILR in 2 years, and once they have ILR is eligible for Naturalisation as soon as they have been legally in the country for 3 years, to include any time before the spouse visa. Just to annoy you further.Why should an immigrant married to a briton get ILR in 3 years while the one on WP/HSMP has to wait 5 years...
I notice none of the people moaning at the beginning of this topic have yet replied to Kayalami's suggestion in point 3. I would be quite interested to know how long it would take me to get residency / citizenship in any of your countries, just to see a comparison.
I think 3 years is quite a long time for my husband to wait to get citizenship, other European countries allow citizenship after a year of marriage, when will the UK fall into line with that practice? Answer - never, having in April 2003 upped the length of the spouse visa from 1 to 2 years. A proportionately bigger increase than the WP/HSMP ILR. So until a few years ago a spouse could be a citizen in 2 years. Did you hear any complaints from BC's? No, because the majority are not interested in laws that don't affect them.
Obviously immigration laws do affect citizens! I was talking about the increase in the duration of the spouse visa from 1-2 years not being of interest to many, you have quoted me out of context.Actually, immigration laws do affect the citizens of the country concerned so they certainly should take an interest.
Not that this will ever happen, but if it did, I would personally challenge this in court as this would be discriminatory to me as a BC and my husband as a spouse of a BC, for the following reasons:Timeperiod to qualify for ILR should be equal for all catagories leading to settlement.
Yes! I have friends (or their spouses I should say) going through the process in both countries right now.BTW bbdivo - are you sure it only takes 2-3 years in Canada and the US to get residence and citizenship??
Not many countries do that. France is the only one that comes to mind, and even they are increasing the period of marriage required for spouses of French citizens.Marie B wrote: I think 3 years is quite a long time for my husband to wait to get citizenship, other European countries allow citizenship after a year of marriage, when will the UK fall into line with that practice?
That didn't affect the eligibility period for British citizenshipAnswer - never, having in April 2003 upped the length of the spouse visa from 1 to 2 years.
There has been a three year residence requirement for spouses of British citizens for many years. In the past, the wife (but not the husband) of a British citizen could get British citizenship more easily, but these concessions were phased out between 28 October 1971 and 31 December 1987.A proportionately bigger increase than the WP/HSMP ILR. So until a few years ago a spouse could be a citizen in 2 years. Did you hear any complaints from BC's? No, because the majority are not interested in laws that don't affect them.