Djordje Sredanovic

I was looking for updates on the 'gold card' but @jdzankic.bsky.social had already done so two months ago. We also have confirmation that the US government is currently floating one of the most blatantly money-grabbing approaches to gold passport/residence as it is a 'gift' rather than 'investment'

If the case has not already been made, I would be curious to see someone argue in court that the US oath mentions only 'allegiance' and not 'holding a passport'

If you use "societal" as a neutral synonym of "social", you might also be interested in reading my comment on why the two terms do not refer to the same reality and why, in this case, it might be better to avoid the variatio and stick with "social" (repetita iuvant after all).

Was citizenship born with the Enlightenment? Introduction Britain constitutes a peculiar case study in the area of citizenship, as British laws did not contain the word “citizenship” until the British Nationality Act of 1948. Although before ...

As bonus: El-Enany's Bordering Britain manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526145420/ and my little article here where I discuss how and why Britain was the only colonial empire not to cut links with the colonial subjects journals.openedition.org/miranda/11118

Britishness, Belonging and Citizenship Britishness, Belonging and Citizenship - Experiencing Nationality Law; Long term resident migrants to the UK still face significant barriers to citizenship. Dr Prabhat captures the experiences of thos...

Devyani Prabhat's Britishness, Belonging and Citizenship policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/britishness-... (as a bonus it is open access) or Dummet & Nicol's Subjects, citizens, aliens and others, if you can find a copy

In this blog post, I explore the ongoing restrictions on Finnish citizenship, examining their causes as well as implications for applicants and the Nordics. Thank you @globalcit.bsky.social @koneensaatio.fi and @vetenskapsradet.bsky.social

I think they were caught unprepared by the numbers, but it was clear that the liberalisation was necessary because the flow of EU workers was closed. And I start to wonder whether some of them were vaguely truthful when saying that Brexit would have opened opportunities to Commonwealth citizens.

Labour MPs are being fobbed off with "jam tomorrow" vagueness about refugee sponsorship ideas that are allegedly in development while the Labour government destroys the UK's highly successful integration model.

The current government on the other hand seems to think they need to play hard on overall numbers, asylum, rights, settlement and citizenship all at the same. Why they cannot at least limit themselves on a single point as the previous governments did, I cannot fathom it

Paradoxically the Tories could have tried to court the 'Borisvawe' (or at least the Commonwealth component) as their potential electors (and they would definitely need some). Instead they made up ideas on who to kick out.

EU citizens that came with the freedom of movement and equal rights protections. And apparently the performative cruelty of the Rwanda Plan and dismantling asylum were considered enough to balance having overall numbers that were higher than before.

I was one of the sceptics when the Leave campaign promised that Brexit would have opened opportunities to Commonwealth migrants. But maybe some Tories were really fine with getting the visa-fee-paying, No Recourse to Public Funds, low-right migrants in place of EU citizens /1

I think the Conservative policy was implicitly 'get the same amount of people in, but with less rights' (especially if Brexit is added to the calculation). Attacking asylum seekers was the way to offset politically the overall numbers. Labour seems to think they need to be harsh on both fronts.

If you are a PhD student working in the history of health, medicine or adjacent topics and disciplines, and you would like to present your research in an engaging and friendly environment, the online CHSTM postgrad seminar series is the right place!

(Yes, the Conservatives were trying to dismantle the whole asylum system, and that would have been a major disalignment. But it did not work, at least not on their terms)

Among other things, I was wondering whether Mahmood's changes to settlement would be UK's first major disalignment with the EU on migration after Brexit. In particular with the 2003 Directive on long-term residents.

I hope the recommendation includes a mirror for the people who commissioned it

I would say this is a bad but intended policy outcome for the current government? Or are they still claiming the opposite?

Immigration system statistics, year ending September 2025 Quarterly statistics on people coming to the UK, extensions of stay, citizenship, asylum, detentions, and returns.

The quarterly immigration system statistics are out, covering the period ending September 2025: www.gov.uk/government/s...

'#Migrant farm workers and stratification'

New on the #IdentitiesBlog, by Giuliana Sanò

Read the blog post ⬇️
identitiesjournal.co...

@nasarmeer.bsky.social @aaronwinter.bsky.social @tandfresearch.bsky.social

Are... people of Anglo-Saxon background moving back to Germany & Denmark?

Call for Papers 📝📣

Citizenship in Displacement: Policies, Practices and Lived Experiences, 25–26 June 2026 in Tangier 🇲🇦

The 2-day workshop will explore how citizenship is reconfigured, negotiated, and contested in contexts of displacement 🔍

📨 Abstract due: 31 Jan 2026

I agree it is worse but I find it infuriating thus recycling of decades-old theories and Labour policies from the Brown era, because I assume a Labour minister should know that both have failed

I do not think it makes economic sense either, it's still political signalling and getting the numbers down. But compared for example to the recent tory position it is about making some people disposable rather than kicking them out almost randomly right away

It boils down to '1) Reform are doing well in the polls 2) It means that a majority of the population will become automatically violent if migration goes above a certain limit 3) I am willing to be the person of colour to give a face to such claims'

Note that there is no discussion of how and whether actual migratory flows, social contact, or whatever else might be causing the division (or indeed what is the proof of such division). This is taking up the talking points of a political rival and turning it from complaints to legitimate points.

Mahmood here is moving dangerously towards a Priti Patel/Suella Braverman field: pushing forward her own racial profile to justify mistreating migrants on the basis of 'race relations' claims from the 1960s. She hurts migrants as well as other politicians of colour by playing this game.

Canadian citizenship can now be passed down to people born abroad, beyond the first generation, if the parents spent a cumulative three years in Canada before the child's birth. Still contestation around "intercountry adoptees" when it comes to passing down citizenship.

I assume it is a subset of A: making sure that more of the population is precarious and will leave if the job market and/or the treasury prefers so. But yes, it is a badly defined policy and includes some claims on integration which make little sense

Bonus point: governments that introduce hardline policies on migration should be treated as dumpers and subject to international pressure. Not only because they worsen/endanger the lives of migrants, but because they cause problems for other governments.