What is Kemi Badenoch’s plan for British citizenship?

Her first policy as Conservative leader has raised eyebrows. Sean O’Grady examines whether it could even work in practice

Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the opposition, has declared that a British passport is a privilege, not a right and that immigrants should only be able to apply to become British citizens after living in the UK for a minimum of 15 years (rather than the current six).

In addition, applicants should be free of criminal convictions, have never lived in social housing, nor claimed benefits. Some wonder how important or sensible any of this is...

Is it practical?

Possibly, but the details could be troublesome, especially the strictures about social security. Many average-waged working families, for example, receive “in work” benefits, which would, presumably, disqualify them from being “British”. Similarly, a good candidate for citizenship on Badenoch’s other terms would be ruled out if they had endured a short time on Jobseeker’s Allowance or had a youthful conviction for a foolish minor offence.

There’s also the philosophical problem that a huge number of Britain’s current citizenry have either lived in social housing, had a criminal conviction, or claimed a benefit – or all three. Shall we deport them? And why is living in a council flat equivalent to a sentence for murder?

What’s Badenoch’s problem?

Badenoch said current rules have created a “conveyor belt” to citizenship for those who had just arrived in the country. But shouldn’t a Tory want people to become citizens, the better to integrate them into society?

What about integration?

It might be assumed that, the longer you live somewhere, the more integrated you grow. Not necessarily, and integration doesn’t proceed at a constant rate. Badenoch complains that Britain is “our home” and not a hotel. However, there is nothing yet in Badenoch’s suggested policy about immigrants “sharing our values”, nor what those values are. The possibility is she means “Conservative” or “Badenoch” values, which aren’t necessarily British. Multiculturalism, for example, is accepted by many who consider themselves, and are, British but she rejects the concept. Most British citizens might flunk a Badenoch citizenship test, and there is no law against hating Britain.

Is Badenoch’s citizenship policy a vote-winner?

It’s not obvious. It is difficult to see how making it harder to be a British citizen, as opposed to an indefinite resident or worker, would be a deterrent to economic migrants or disappointed refugees unable to return home. It also raises the difficult question of the status of children born in the UK to non-citizen parents. “Birthright” citizenship has become a deeply controversial question in America, for example. Would Badenoch also demand an end to dual citizenship? On all these issues, Badenoch can never out-Farage Nigel Farage.

What about the Tory migration cap?

No news. Badenoch is committed to one, but won’t say what it is or when she’ll unveil it. It is not a problem for now, when she’s concentrating on “values” rather than policies, but in the longer term it threatens to destabilise her leadership, as it did for so many of her predecessors.

She also has the dilemma of how to admit her party’s “mistakes” on migration without trashing the record of 14 years in power, and her colleagues’ reputations. Her recent nasty spat with ex-home secretary Priti Patel proved that point.