Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bonzini 1 day ago
My understanding is that giving permanent residence means not naturalizing, and therefore this is a step towards compliance.
1 comments

I'm not familiar with the Swedish system, but in the 2 immigration systems I am familiar with, permanent residence is a step you must take before naturalizing.
In those two immigration systems you are familiar with, what is the difference between permanent residence and naturalizing, and is there any benefit to get naturalizing rather than staying as permanent residence?
1. Leave the country for an extended period and return

2. (USA) Vote, make political contributions and run for (most) political office. (UK) run for MP

3. (USA) Sponsor family members for permanent residency (UK) get a family visa for your family.

4. (USA) Speed your spouse' eligibility for naturalization from 5 to 3 years.

5. Gain the benefits of travelling on a US/UK passport.

6. Work in national security jobs which require citizenship.

7. Not be at the whims of future changes in immigration law.

Is one of those in the EU?
No, although a quick search shows France also operates on this principal. Is there any counterexamples you are thinking of?
Italy has a long term residence card that is valid for 10 years, and renewable indefinitely, but the conditions for renew are absolutely not comparable to a green card for example. Just go out of the EU for a year and it's no more.

https://www.poliziadistato.it/articolo/ec-residence-permit-f...

This was adopted by Italy in 2007. So while I am not sure about it I suspect it's the same for all EU countries, since immigration papers are mostly governed by EU regulations and directives. What is your source for France having mandatory permanent residency prior to naturalization (unless it's permanent in the sense of renewable indefinitely)?

Edit: indeed, this is a bill for adopting rules laid out in the EU directive on immigration and asylum.