- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
I actually found that to be a very well thought out and reasonable response. My initial HSMP visa is not a guarantee to settlement, it is unreasonable for me to expect that based on my current visa, I am guaranteed a future visa.milz wrote:Hi all,
please follow the link below for the Government's e-petition response of the recent HSMP changes:
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12793.asp
thanks,
Milz.
Victoria,VictoriaS wrote:This response contains one statement which is inaccurate...
..."an initial grant of leave under the HSMP does not create the expectation of a further grant. "
This is being challenged in the courts, and at each stage the government have lost, in that the courts have said that there was an expectation of further leave providing the applicant fitted the criteria for extension as it was at the time of their application.
We will wait and see what happens, but my money is on the HSMP applicants to win this one.
Victoria
I am against this policy (rule) where one looses the time spent on HSMP when the person switches to WP from HSMP considering the person has been in continous employment while being on HSMP.Edelweiss wrote:The issue of transitional arrangements is also a lie because if you switch to a WP the time that you have already spent in the country on the HSMP scheme doesn't count any longer. So you will still have to apply for FLR at some point and may have to spend up to 9 years in the country before you can get ILR.
I gather the smug comment was addressed to me? If not, then nevermind But if it was: No, I do not have a job yet, but I am not smug. I just don't feel I am entitled to anything in life (in general) that is not *actually* my right.Edelweiss wrote:
Do you already have a job that pays enough to get your FLR? Don't be so smug if you don't.
Sorry guys - will stop whining now. I won't qualify for FLR, so I have to start packing and I am sad and upset.
Did anybody know there would be attacks in London???Edelweiss wrote:Yes, but you know that coming in. We did not.
No, I didn't know there would be attacks in London. You're right, it's another misleading act, these should have been in the guidance notes!olisun wrote:Edelweiss wrote:Yes, but you know that coming in. We did not. /quote]
Did anybody know there would be attacks in London???
No, Similarly one should always be prepared for changes in life and always have a backup plan in case things didn't work in their favour.
Your reply gives the impression that every HSMP applicant was / have been 100% truthful in thier respective applications and it's no fault of theirs that the UK Govt. has changed the goal post once again and you support those HSMP candidates who are to some extent responsible for the mess they created for others.bani wrote:olisun wrote:No, I didn't know there would be attacks in London. You're right, it's another misleading act, these should have been in the guidance notes!Edelweiss wrote:Yes, but you know that coming in. We did not. /quote]
Did anybody know there would be attacks in London???
No, Similarly one should always be prepared for changes in life and always have a backup plan in case things didn't work in their favour.
I'm not implying that at all. Maybe you gather that from the other thread you mentioned. But it's the government's responsibility to verify these applications anyway. If the policy change is because they have been duped by previous HSMP applicants, they should say so and give us the hard stats. Instead they have justified the rule changes as "being in line with the EU", "it's not really retrospective", etc.olisun wrote:bani wrote:olisun wrote:
Your reply gives the impression that every HSMP applicant was / have been 100% truthful in thier respective applications and it's no fault of theirs that the UK Govt. has changed the goal post once again and you support those HSMP candidates who are to some extent responsible for the mess they created for others.
I suppose you also believe that people should not be allowed to try on clothes in shops because there are a few dishonest ones that steal. I really don't think laws should be based on what a few people do. A better way to deal with this would be to increase the time taken with applications and the cost (yes I know it's already expensive) and really check every applicant out. I don't understand why a police clearance certificate and health check are not included in the application process. If you ensure from the start that you are letting in only approved and valued people, you don't have to keep getting extensions.Your reply gives the impression that every HSMP applicant was / have been 100% truthful in thier respective applications and it's no fault of theirs that the UK Govt.
There's something here that seems almost to deflect responsibility from the applicant (to be honest) to the Government (to verify), which I find distressing. I would argue that if applicants are not wholly responsible for the veracity of their applications, then the Government need not give a robust justification for putting up the requirements.bani wrote:But it's the government's responsibility to verify these applications anyway. If the policy change is because they have been duped by previous HSMP applicants, they should say so and give us the hard stats. Instead they have justified the rule changes as "being in line with the EU", "it's not really retrospective", etc.
I can't control what every schmuck with £335 submits to the Home Office, can you? But obviously the Home Office can screen them (I think they will be happy to say there has been no "deflection", this has been their caseworkers' job = their responsibility since 2002).gordon wrote:There's something here that seems almost to deflect responsibility from the applicant (to be honest) to the Government (to verify), which I find distressing. I would argue that if applicants are not wholly responsible for the veracity of their applications, then the Government need not give a robust justification for putting up the requirements.bani wrote:But it's the government's responsibility to verify these applications anyway. If the policy change is because they have been duped by previous HSMP applicants, they should say so and give us the hard stats. Instead they have justified the rule changes as "being in line with the EU", "it's not really retrospective", etc.
AG
The problem with this approach is the few people who are effected then start crying they have been discriminated and the govt. is dearly beloved. Hence the easiest way for any govt. is to apply it across the board.Edelweiss wrote:I really don't think laws should be based on what a few people do.
I agree with you completely but then again people start moaning that the process is very slow.Edelweiss wrote: A better way to deal with this would be to increase the time taken with applications and the cost (yes I know it's already expensive) and really check every applicant out. I don't understand why a police clearance certificate and health check are not included in the application process. If you ensure from the start that you are letting in only approved and valued people, you don't have to keep getting extensions.
I have posted almost similar views in another thread regarding this logic applied which I find is ridiculous.Edelweiss wrote:Similarly, with the transitional arrangements to WP for those not qualifying for FLR - it is possible for the HO to check that a person was economically active during the period they were on HSMP
The Home Office had my application for almost 12 months. I would have thought that sufficient time to verify the information submitted with the application.Edelweiss wrote:A better way to deal with this would be to increase the time taken with applications and the cost (yes I know it's already expensive) and really check every applicant out.
My feelings and situation are very similar to yours. As of now, I will qualify to extend my FLR, but who knows how rules will change again? Sure, I have a backup plan (because that is just my personality to always have one), what I really hate is being misled. I resent being made to sign a document that says I intend to make the UK my main home and then Liam Byrne creating new impediments and delays to that happening. And then callously saying the UK should be able to change its mind according to its best interest at present time and immigrants will just have to comply.UKbound wrote:As someone that still qualifies under the new criteria, I'm still unhappy.
I have expectations about being able to stay here, as does everyone that's immigrated to the UK on this programme. The paperwork itself says that you must be willing to make the UK your permanent home.
To change the rules in the middle of the game isn't fair, and the morality of it is also questionable.
I understand that some people may have abused the system, as happens in any system. Look at the public welfare system in the UK, for example. But the result is that a large group of people are being punished to solve for the minority that were dishonest. This scares me.
Even though I still qualify after all of the changes so far, who knows if that will be true after the 2008 modifications. It makes me uneasy to know that I've committed to the UK, with the impression and understanding that the UK was also committing to me, but now that appears not to be true.
I doubt the same. The rules/points for HSMP can be changed anytime or as many times as per Immigration policies.We will wait and see what happens, but my money is on the HSMP applicants to win this one.