NEW Immigration Act 2014 Dates

[Zee ali]

Interesting analysis to read with expected implication dates of IA 2014

http://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/pdf/Immigra ... alysis.pdf

[Zee ali]

Interesting analysis to read with expected implication dates of IA 2014

http://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/pdf/Immigra ... alysis.pdf

Appeal rights will abolish in October 2014

Landlords will check resident status from Mid of 2015

According to this analysis.

[Amber]

The tribunal system is a joke for many different sections - backlogs and costs. If people would concentrate on correct applications and correct decisions in the first place 80% of tribunal work could be thinned out.

[Olasunkanmi]

@ Amber, the recent decision by HO to remove appeal for most applications is solely base on reducing cost and not on the outcome of the tribunal as the figure below shows;

''In Q3, 45% of the 14,546 First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) appeals were allowed.''

Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /82006.htm

The figure shows that around 45% of appeal are allowed despite the fact that HO always claim to be right. The 45% rate might have been around 60-70% if we look at the issue of minor mistakes in which some judges refuse to apply evidential flexibility.

The HO should not be allowed to police themselves with the plan to abolish appeal rights because evidence has shown that HO have been proved to make mistakes upon mistakes and giving them such level of authority amounts to injustice to the majority of immigrants who might have made a simple mistake on their application.

I hope that this blatant disregard for human right will be challenge at the court and HO will be force to retract back their mis-informed decision.

[Amber]

I never doubted that.

[ouflak1]

''In Q3, 45% of the 14,546 First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) appeals were allowed.''

Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /82006.htm

The figure shows that around 45% of appeal are allowed despite the fact that HO always claim to be right. The 45% rate might have been around 60-70% if we look at the issue of minor mistakes in which some judges refuse to apply evidential flexibility.

45% is pretty good. They could make it 0% percent if they liked. The United Kingdom has no responsibility to let anybody who is not a citizen, in or stay, even for clerical errors.

The HO should not be allowed to police themselves with the plan to abolish appeal rights because evidence has shown that HO have been proved to make mistakes upon mistakes and giving them such level of authority amounts to injustice to the majority of immigrants who might have made a simple mistake on their application.

They UK could just abolish the Home Office period and flat out say NO MORE PERMANENT IMMIGRANTS EVER. Be happy that there is any organization like this at all, no matter how it's being policed. I'm still amazed at how welcoming this country has not only been, but still is, all while still managing to hold on to its own identity (though perhaps barely). I think some people around the world sincerely believe that the United Kingdom, and a few other choice countries, somehow owe them an opportunity to come in and let them live out the rest of their lives there. Well sorry, but that is just not the case and cannot be the case. Surprise, surprise, the United Kingdom does not have an infinite amount of resources and are having to cut back across the board to maintain any semblance of their society as it is.

I hope that this blatant disregard for human right will be challenge at the court and HO will be force to retract back their mis-informed decision.

The United Kingdom is a sovereign nation and has rights as well, including the right to well decide who gets to be let in, who stays, and who goes. They do not owe the entire mass of humanity that would like to live here a visa. There are already 60 million people on this island and growing. That's bordering on the absurd.

[Wanderer]

Well said Ouflak1....

[Rayking]

I don't really think people believe they have right to live here or it's a must,as many that have been here have done so on the basis of finding a better life,for their future and their children. For this,one should be ever grateful. Even if you're born here someone sacrificed something and it could be deliberately done too to give the child a better life.
As much as we all know ppl abuse the system, we might need to be careful how we tend to believe the bulk should stop with us.ppl will always look for a better life and bcos we've got it doesn't mean others shouldn't look for it.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves, wouldn't the immigration laws be tougher & inhuman if some of us in this forum are in the position of Theresa May?I bet we might be worst than this.no matter the change the country should always be celebrated for what I call "dignity of human life"
In summary, my point is,if you have got what it takes to be fine in this country, someone paid the prize and let's not give impression that things should just end now bcos others don't deserve it AGAIN.

[Olasunkanmi]

@ ouflak1, the issue here is not about the number of people that are being allowed in but the human right of those that are allowed to submit application.

The HO has target for the number of people they grant visa each year and nobody will doubt the fact that its UK right to determine how many people they allow into UK.

But when HO decide to allow caseworkers mistakes to be left uncheck, then this call for a debate as no organisation in a civilize society should be allow to police themselves.

You guys are getting the issue mixed up by assuming that most people want to come or stay in UK by all means, HO has the right to refuse whoever they so wish but it must be done in the right way.

[Amber]

That's baloney they couldn't make it 0% if they liked. Well they could be it would be subject to judicial review and likely be incompatible with the Convention.

[RizKCB]

It could be a good way to stop immigration but definitely inappropriate to take away the right of appeal. Specially giving right to case worker to consider general grounds to refuse in point base system means a lot of judicial reviews back to different case worker which will lead to the conflict of interest. The proposed plan is to lodge judicial review within 10 days and to be decided within 28 days along with amended 3c, 3d to keep previous visa conditions live. But practically the load which was previously shared by HO and Tribunal will now only be shifted to HO and consequently create a big bottle neck and backlog. On the other side, one can lodge appeal if the refusal decision effects human rights. It seems that every other refusal will be served back as judicial review or appealing under human rights regardless of outcomes.

[dalebutt]

What a load of baloney Mr.Outflak is chatting? Everybody who gets to the UK has a right to stay in the UK, whatever resources there is left shall be shared amongst everyone on the Island. So it was OK for the British to invade Africa by boats without prior permission? or invitation? It was OK for the British Government to invade Iraq and make life miserable for the people living there and at the same time the British people wanted a preserved identity having gone around just about every country in the world to rob them of their resources.

We know about the way the Aborigines were made a scapegoat in their own land, we also read the story of how the so called British government supported the apartheid, labelled Mandela a terrorist, whilst subsequently draining natural resources of the rightful owners, if any country wants to complain about over-flooding of immigrants, it is the Germans in Europe and not the British.


I know you are just another immigrant thanking your stars having being probably granted ILR or BC and you deemed it fit that now that you have been sorted, the doors should be shut? Well whatever the UKVI intends to do shall be judicially overturned, families won't sit back and accept their extinction from the Island.

[Wanderer]

What a load of baloney Mr.Outflak is chatting? Everybody who gets to the UK has a right to stay in the UK, whatever resources there is left shall be shared amongst everyone on the Island.

Even those who arrive illegally?

Lord Save Us from schoolboy economics...

[dalebutt]

What a load of baloney Mr.Outflak is chatting? Everybody who gets to the UK has a right to stay in the UK, whatever resources there is left shall be shared amongst everyone on the Island.

Even those who arrive illegally?

Lord Save Us from schoolboy economics...

How did the Brits arrive in Africa when they went by boat? did the receive any visa? did they arrive legally? did they also arrive in Iraq legally? were they invited? if you answer to that, then I will asnwer your question about those who arrived here illegally.

[Wanderer]

What a load of baloney Mr.Outflak is chatting? Everybody who gets to the UK has a right to stay in the UK, whatever resources there is left shall be shared amongst everyone on the Island.

Even those who arrive illegally?

Lord Save Us from schoolboy economics...

How did the Brits arrived in Africa when they went by boat? did the receive any visa? did they arrive legally? did they also arrive in Iraq legally? were they invited? if you answer to that, then I will asnwer your question about those who arrived here illegally.

Was there a visa office in Africa then? Actually I agree about Iraq, that was just weapons testing for the allies and I want no part of it but for things that happened centuries ago? No, that was then and this is now, it was survival of the fittest then and the fittest came out on top. Now the World is more enlightened. Some of it anyway.

[dalebutt]

It happened ages ago, but you know we cannot forget what happened, we shall always remember, we've forgiven but we cannot be expected to forget.

I agree there wasn't a visa office in Africa, but fact remains they didn't seek permission to enter, there were procedures then in every country, if you wish to visit a country in drove like the Brits did, you should inform them of your prior arrival, they didn't. Instead they got on their boats and padddled their way down in drove.

So the innocent citizens of Iraq are a supposed to be a tool in a survival of the fittest battle, their livelihood has been destroyed and you want them to remain in Iraq that no longer offer opportunities like it once did before the invasion? The truth is, we will carry on debating back and fourth on the issue, with every side having a point to make.

If anyone wanted a reasoned debate about immigration control, they should approach the issue sensibly and not the usual the British people are fed up, the Island is full, because just about every other country is FED UP of Britain interference in their affair.

[Zee ali]

How did the Brits arrived in Africa when they went by boat? did the receive any visa? did they arrive legally? did they also arrive in Iraq legally? were they invited? if you answer to that, then I will asnwer your question about those who arrived here illegally.[/quote]

Was there a visa office in Africa then? Actually I agree about Iraq, that was just weapons testing for the allies and I want no part of it but for things that happened centuries ago? No, that was then and this is now, it was survival of the fittest then and the fittest came out on top. Now the World is more enlightened. Some of it anyway.[/quote]


One more thing to add here.
Did u ever heard the name of East india Company?
They came to sub continent to do business. This British Govt owned company only given permission to do business by Mughal Emperor but eventually they invaded and captured the sub continent.

[MPH80]

But none of this has anything to do with the current immigration rules and system.

Look - you can pull this argument back as far as you like. The argument that Britain has a debt to people in other countries due to previous invasions or occupancies could be pushed back as simply as 'we had a right to go into Africa because that's where humanity came from in the first place' - which is, of course, ridiculous.

Then you get into arguments about intention and things that happened while occupation or rule was ongoing. Then you get the question of how many of the current generation were directly affected by those events?

Then it moves to discussions about the benefits that the invader/occupiers brought to the country (What have the romans ever done for us??)

So how long do you wait until it's 'past'?

You can tit-for-tat this argument until kingdom come and it'll still get you nowhere as you won't change people's mind using it. It is a fruitless and pointless discussion.

If we can accept that - then we can move into a more productive discussion - what's best for the island on which we're living? You can discuss what's best for the world - it's too global and you wouldn't have any impact anyway - and you can't talk about individuals as there are always individual circumstances that require analysis and exceptions.

The problem is that it's all interlinked. If you open the doors further - then you find that house prices go up further, food prices go up further and the entire place becomes more expensive and thus harder for the new immigrants arriving who do, typically, take the lower paying jobs. If you close the doors off too much - you find you stymy the tentative growth that does exist and stem the flow of valuable migrants arriving. Somewhere in the middle - the answer exists.

To dismiss the arguments of 'british being fed up' is to underestimate strength of negative feelings. To ignore those feelings is to allow the right wing an easy foot hold in and those feelings fester and become cancerous. Before you know it - the government or some other group is blaming an entire race or religion for the problems and declaring a genocide or such - which is exactly what's going on with Isis and has happened repeatedly through history. All the 'security measures' we have in place such as Article 8 and the entire HRA can be removed within the blink of an eye if the government want - all they have to do is politicise the judiciary.

It might sound far fetched given where we are today - but this process took less than 10-15 years in Germany (Is this the point we call Godwin?) - and the far right is making some nasty looking gains right now.

Better to view immigration as a game rather than emotional situation. Learn the rules - learn to beat the game - but accept that the game is loaded for the government to win. So you have to figure out how to get around it.

There are human stories in every immigration situation and both sides can use it to their effect ("loving family torn apart by immigration rules" v "immigrants on the verge of claiming benefits removed from country").

[Rayking]

Obviously the 60 million outflak1 and wanderer are referring to ain't illegal? You were talking about legal people except you're telling me there are 60 million illegal in this country?
Now to the issue you raised,you actually think bcos there are 60 million people in the country already,I don't have right to marry from ANYWHERE I want? Even though you have done so,you think others who have the same right as you should be subjected to not bringing their spouse bcos I don't seem to understand your argument.
The 60 million you're talking about, ain't you one of the 60 million?Ok may be you should tell us why you believe you're not part of the 60 million then.
Anyone who has got immigration stuff to deal with directly or indirectly shouldn't come here and be insulting others.if you've brought or marry someone from outside, you can't then come out now and be moaning about others who have the same right as you!
You're either anti immigrants or believe United kingdom is for you or people you think should be here.I'll repeat this again, your attitude is ingrained in your believe and no wonder you give cheeky and sarcastic answers at times.

[dalebutt]

I agree with most part of your comment, we can ping pong back and fourth on the issue and it will absolutely yield no result, if anybody wants to debate immigration issues, it shouldn't be on the premise that the British people are fed up, they should have in the first place opposed the interference by the British government overseas. For any opposing view, there is perfectly a well balanced counter argument.

The impact of max immigration will be bad for the UK, the public services will surely be overstretched, immigration should be controlled I agree, but the antics of forum members "Island is full or the British people are fed up" is out of order in my view. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

[Rayking]

@ dalebutt,that's my point,the forum is to help anyone who has got immigration issues,not for anyone to subject another member to humiliation we face from the "British" about this issue on here as well.
If anyone thinks by being born here by parents who had to go through all this immigration stuff is enough reason or reasons to give us the statistical analysis of people living in Britain, then there is no way emotions won't come into it!

[Amber]

Let's try and keep the discussions focused on issues appertaining to the new Act rather than turning this into an immigration debate.

[UKBA HUNTER]

I am compelled to participate here with few precise words. If we observe very deeply while looking on British benefit system, immigration system & banking system then will come to know that from whatever means or channels the wealth & resources had arrived in Britain is actually departing back due to ineffectively management of immigration, welfare facilities, public funds & banks etc.

[perplexed42]

I worry the new Act will mean mistakes will continue to be made by the Home Office, but this time it means that the family concerned have to leave the UK and appeal from their "next" available country. We're talking about people who have established lives in the UK - jobs, kids go to school etc - these people who through the fault of an oversight by the Home Office - will not have a right of appeal within the UK, but may appeal outside the UK, or simply have to reapply outside the UK, and hope (!) the Home Office don't make further mistakes.