Likewise Jonathan! The position of Irish citizens as favoured sponsors is now really unclear - presumably they don't qualify either?

The removal at that time of some nationality preference was part of the response to the Abdulaziz ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (May 1985), which had found gender discrimination in immigration policy contrary to the ECHR.

The Immigration Rules have not favoured British citizens over others 'present and settled' in relation to the sponsorship of family members since July 1985.

If something like this is the outcome, it would mean that - contrary to the long practice in UK immigration law - holders of indefinite leave would no longer be able to sponsor family members on the same terms as British citizens.

These are said to include (a) the spouses and dependants of British citizens and (b) British Nationals (Overseas) from Hong Kong.

Someone really should ask for further details about their status at the relevant times. The idea that 'fairness' means making settlement far harder to acquire now does not stand up to scrutiny.

Wives who were sponsored to come to the UK by British citizens, or holders of ILR, before 1985, acquired indefinite leave without a probationary period.

If her father was admitted to work, or as a family member before 1 January 1973, he would been without time limits, and so would have obtained ILR automatically when the Immigration Act 1971 came into force.

It seems very likely that Shabana Mahmood's parents each qualified for permanent stay upon arrival.

Denmark has an opt-out, which is why it’s the only member state pursuing the see policies.

There is a Brexit angle to this. If the UK seeks to rejoin EU, it will be obliged to accept a Directive giving long-term residence after 5 years. Polices which deny ILR, or make it harder, store up problems.

This matters because the conflation of the two categories tends to helps those arguing against (a) migration and (b) legal guarantees for foreigners.