Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Law - Essay Example

Order No 186720 Topic: Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Law Prepared by Dr. Zulfiquar Ahmed ID: 10131 23-10-2007 Order 186720Topic: Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Law Answer: 1 Wulfrunian citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis. In other words one usually acquires Wulfrunian citizenship if a parent is Wulfrunian, irrespective of place of birth. Birth in Wulfrunia Birth in Wulfrunia does not in itself confer Wulfrunian citizenship. However it may lead to a reduction in the residence requirement for naturalisation as a Wulfrunian citizen. Foundlings under the age of 6 months are legally presumed to have Wulfrunian citizenship. Descent from an Wulfrunian parent A child born to Wulfrunian parents is an Wulfrunian citizen. If the parents are married at the time of birth, Wulfrunian citizenship of either the mother or the father is sufficient. If the parents are not married, however, a father cannot pass on Wulfrunian citizenship, whereas a mother can. Should the parents happen to marry at some time after the birth, citizenship is automatically granted to the child retroactively. If the child is over 14 at that time, however, his or her consent is needed. Naturalisation as an Wulfrunian citizen It is possible to apply for Wulfrunian citizenship by naturalization after 10 years of continuous residence in Wulfrunia. Additional requirements include: knowledge of the German language 'having due regard to the alien's personal circumstances' renunciation of foreign citizenship (under the law of the applicant's home country) unless this is impractical. This requirement can be waived in exceptional cases. Naturalization as an Wulfrunian citizen based on "the 10-year-rule" is discretionary. Exemptions to the residence requirement The residence requirement may be reduced or waived in the following cases: recognized refugees (4 years) persons born in Wulfrunia former citizens of Wulfrunia (other than by deprivation) actual or expected 'outstanding achievements in the fields of science, commerce, the arts or sport' Entitlement to grant of Wulfrunian citizenship Some persons are entitled to Wulfrunian citizenship by a simpler process than naturalization. Renunciation of foreign citizenship is still almost always required. Minor children of a person granted Wulfrunian citizenship are normally granted Wulfrunian citizenship as well. Spouses of Wulfrunian citizens The marriage has to have lasted a minimum of 5 years; and The couple has to have lived together for 5 years; and The spouse applicant has to have lived in Wulfrunia permanently for a minimum of 6 years. Long residence in Wulfrunia A person who has lived in Wulfrunia for 30 years, or 15 years in cases of 'sustained personal and occupational integration' is entitled to grant of Wulfrunian citizenship. Former Wulfrunian citizens Former citizens of newly independent Wulfrunia who lost citizenship other than by renunciation or deprivation may be granted Wulfrunian citizenship after 1 year's residence in Wulfrunia. Wulfrunian citizenship must have been possessed for 10 years before it was lost. A person who lost Wulfrunian nationality as a child (other than by deprivation) may re-acquire it by declaration within 2 years of turning 18. Stateless persons born in Wulfrunia A stateless person born in Wulfrunia may be granted Wulfrunian citizenship within two years of age 18 if he has lived in Wulfrunia for a total of 10 years, including 5 years continuously before application. Loss of Wulfrunian citizenship An Wulfrunian citizen who acquires another citizenship by voluntary action automatically loses Wulfrunian citizenship. The exception is in cases where permission to retain Wulfrunian citizenship has been obtained in advance. In practical terms this is quite difficult to obtain, since it needs to be in the interest of the republic of Wulfrunia to grant this dual citizenship. Wulfrunian citizenship is also automatically lost by serving in a foreign army. Dual citizenship Wulfrunian law substantially restricts dual citizenship. In general, only the following categories of Wulfrunian citizens may possess a foreign nationality: those acquiring another nationality at birth, such as children born in the U.S. to Wulfrunian parents, or those born with an Wulfrunian and a foreign parent. naturalised Wulfrunian citizens who are unable to renounce their existing nationality. those who acquire Wulfrunian citizenship on the basis of being appointed a professor at an Wulfrunian university. Wulfrunian citizens who naturalise in another country with permission obtained to retain Wulfrunian citizenship. Wulfrunian citizenship and Enemy country During the war between Wulfrania and enemy country, 15 January 1997 to 24 October 2007, those persons acquiring enemy country's citizenship generally lost Wulfranian citizenship on that date. Answer: 2 In the UK, the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002 explicitly introduced a test to residents seeking British citizenship. Applicants should show "a sufficient knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic" and also "a sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom" by passing a test (effectively implemented since 1 November 2005). Those immigrants seeking to settle in the UK (applying for an "indefinite leave to remain") equally have to pass the test (effectively implemented since 2 April 2007). If one does not have sufficient knowledge of English, the applicant should attend English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and citizenship classes. Some categories can get free tuition, but in principle one has to pay for the classes, just like one has to pay for the test itself. In explanatory documents of the Home Office it is stressed the tests aim at "integration", but without this meaning "complete assimilation" (Home Office, 2004: 14). In other words, there is still room for multiculturalism and in order to emphasize this point, reference is made to the particular position of the Welsh and Scottish in the UK: " [] So to be British does not mean assimilation into a common culture so that original identities are lost. Assimilation to such a degree has not, after all, happened for most people in Wales and Scotland, nor historically for Irish and Jewish immigrant communities, not for smaller communities as the Poles who once fled from persecution. There is no reason why loss of a distinctive identity within a wider British identity should occur to immigrants from the new Commonwealth or from elsewhere" (Home Office, 2004: 15). Interestingly in this respect, questions asked during the citizenship test can vary according to the region (i.e. for instance Scotland with questions on the Scottish parliament). From a substantive point of view, other than respect for the general principles of the modern democratic state, no specific content is given to the idea of Britishness: "To be British seems us to mean that we respect the laws, the elected parliamentary and democratic political structures, traditional values of mutual tolerance, respect for equal rights and mutual concern; and that we give our allegiance to the state (as commonly symbolised in the Crown) in return for its protection. To be British is to respect those over-arching specific institutions, values, beliefs and traditions that bind us all, the different nations and cultures together in peace and in a legal order." (Home Office, 2004: 15). Any democratic nation state will basically uphold these general principles linked to the rule of law. More typically - although not exclusive - British elements are the reference to the multinational character of the UK and the idea of allegiance to the Crown. What steps can they take if their applications are unsuccessful Since there is no appeal against refusal of British citizenship, and the Home Secretary is not bound to give reasons for refusal, one might say cynically that the new provision hardly matters. Naturalisation is not the only means of acquiring British citizenship where the Home Secretary has discretion. Under S.13 of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Home Secretary has discretion to register a person who has renounced British citizenship for any reason whatever, while the arrangements for resumption by entitlement are very limited. (3) Consider the ways in which the EU and the ECHR have improved or worsened the position of the refugee or Asylum Seeker in the UK. The UK is not the asylum capital of the world. Britain hosts only 2 percent of the world's refugee population (UNHCR 2003 estimate: 276,522). The UK government and UNHCR are also working to improve protection for refugees in states closer to their countries of origin so there is less of a need for refugees to move further to seek protection and assistance. Meanwhile, the UK government has started the modest Gateway resettlement scheme in coordination with the UN refugee agency under which it plans to yearly bring 500 refugees in urgent need of protection directly to the UK. In this way Britain can help some refugees to avoid resorting to people traffickers and possibly contribute to reducing the number of asylum seekers. In 2004, the government invited UNHCR to assist the Home Office to address the quality and efficiency of the asylum claims process with twice yearly public reports being released under the joint UN/Home Office Quality Initiative project and being taken up by the Home Office. The Refugee Convention does not prevent governments from establishing fair and effective asylum systems; it does not prevent the removal of failed asylum seekers, nor does it protect terrorists or others suspected of posing grave risks to society. Withdrawing from the Refugee Convention would not remove the UK's responsibility towards individuals seeking asylum. If the UK backed out of the Refugee Convention, which it helped write, it would send the wrong signal to countries that shelter the majority of the world's refugees. No state has ever withdrawn from the 1951 Refugee Convention. Even if Britain opted to withdraw, asylum seekers would still arrive and the UK would remain bound under domestic laws and jurisprudence towards hearing out their claims. In order to remove all obligations to hear asylum claims the UK would also have to revise or withdraw from other international treaties that prohibit states from returning people to face torture as well as various EU agreements, possibly even the EU itself. If the UK were to withdraw from these international agreements it would find it difficult to obtain the cooperation of other states in other areas, including taking back people who had passed through their territories. The 1951 Refugee Convention is an enduring international instrument that has helped save countless lives and permits most refugees to find sanctuary close to their homelands. Without international burden-sharing and a refugee protection system underpinned by the 1951 Refugee Convention, UNHCR believes the refugee problem worldwide would worsen, rather than improve. Withdrawing from the Refugee Convention could fatally undermine international efforts and could lead to more uncontrolled flows of refugees into the UK. The UK government should consider the following issues of Common European Asylum system: Partnership with countries of origin, addressing political, human rights and development issues in countries of origin and transit A common asylum system Fair treatment of third country nationals, with a strong integration policy and equal rights to citizens More efficient management of migration flows In February 2003, a draft United Kingdom (UK) Government proposal to send asylum-seekers arriving in the UK and other European Union (EU) states to transit processing centres (TPCs) in states bordering, but outside, the EU, was leaked to The Guardian (Alan Travis, 2003).1 The proposal, as outlined in a document made public in March 2003, has two strands (Home Office, 2003). The proposal entitled "A new vision for refugees" contained provision for regional protection areas (RPAs) in refugee-producing regions, and included the idea of establishing centres in transit countries (CO/HO Project, 4: 2003). The UK proposals represent the inevitable culmination of these restrictive practices towards asylum. But by suggesting new approaches the UK is also admitting to their failure. Deterrence, prevention and other punitive measures, while increasing the hardship on people fleeing violence and persecution, have had little discernable effect in terms of reducing the numbers of asylum applications. The real goal behind the UK proposal appears to be to reduce the number of spontaneous arrivals in the UK and EU states by denying access to territory and shifting the asylum-seekers to processing zones outside the EU, where responsibility, enforceability and accountability for refugee protection would be weak and unclear. Bibliography Alan Travis (2003). "Shifting a problem back to its source - would-be refugees may be sent to protected zones near homeland", The Guardian, 5 February, 2003. CO/HO Future of Migration Project (2003). A new vision for refugees, Final Report, January 2003. (The UK New Vision). Home Office (2003).New International Approaches to Asylum Processing and Protection, March 2003. Home Office (2004). Life in the United Kingdom. A Journey to Citizenship. Norwich: TSO. The Amnesty International (2003). "UK/EU/UNHCR Unlawful and Unworkable - Amnesty International's views on proposals for extra-territorial processing of asylum claims", 18 June 2003. http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engior610042003 UNHCR Document (2003). Read More