It’s not just the Peter Mandelson affair that is provoking a rebellion inside the Labour Party. At the same time, backbenchers are up in arms over plans to extend the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), delaying eligibility for British citizenship.

If it goes through, it will be the most significant piece of immigration reform passed by this government. Critically, it would delay citizenship for millions who arrived in Britain during the “Boriswave.” That delay would push naturalisation beyond the next general election, potentially leaving the final decision in the hands of a very different government.

Not everyone is happy with the new reforms, though. On Tuesday, several Labour MPs rose to condemn the measures for a variety of different reasons. The overriding theme of the complaints was one of fairness. The fact that those who had already arrived in Britain and begun working toward ILR status would not be exempt from the changes was, it was claimed, a case of retroactive law-making. That the system was changing partway through the process created “insecurity and disruption”, in the words of Stourbridge MP Cat Eccles. Migrants were having “the rug pulled from under them”, claimed Warinder Juss, the MP for Wolverhampton West.

What is noteworthy here is the extent to which these MPs clearly regard recently-arrived immigrants as already being an integral part of the national community. Most of us would view the state as having a duty of trust to the public as a whole, and to the individual British citizen, while having some obligation to protect them from unnecessary insecurity and disruption. But what is reflected by the statements in Parliament on Tuesday is that many MPs — and presumably those whom they represent — believe these obligations extend beyond citizens, and out to anybody currently present in Britain.

Eccles in particular made reference to “those who have lived in the UK and contributed to our economy for at least half a decade”, as if five years is an agreed-upon substantial amount of time. That seems very brief in terms of the amount of time a person might spend in a country before they are treated the same as a British citizen by the state. It only adds to the problem when Labour MPs talk of taxpaying as a heroic contribution when immigrants do it, as opposed to being the absolute bare minimum they expect from the rest of us.

This is the paradox of the post-national idea of citizenship held by many on the Left today. They simultaneously want us to think of citizenship as being like an inviolable bond toward which immigrants can strive — and which, once attained after as short a waiting period as five years, makes them a permanent member of the national family. On the other hand, they seem to resent the fact that those who do not hold it, or do not yet hold it, do not automatically enjoy its privileges. But what is the point of citizenship if not to distinguish between those who hold it and those who don’t?

---

Chris Bayliss is an independent consultant who works on energy infrastructure in the Middle East.

baylissbaghdad

---