What has happened to the JR

[JAJ]

JAJ, by saying that Labour "irresponsibly increased the intake" I am afraid you make it all too clear which side of this (and perhaps other) issues you stand on. What a nice tidy country this would be without all those foreigners!

The fact I participate on this forum should suggest to you that my views do not fall into the "nice and tidy" little box that you may think.

The following graph pretty much tells its own story.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=260

And it didn't happen by accident either. It was government policy at the time (Blunkett says "no limit"): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3265219.stm
(of course people did vote for that government)

A society that is not open to diversity and foreign influence will be much the poorer for it, and it is true that migrants by definition are (usually) harder working, more enterprising and better educated than the average in their former countries. That much is clear.

But the irresponsibility of the Labour government was the way it ignored the impact of a 1-2 million increase in the population per decade, particularly on the employment prospects and wage levels of the least-skilled British citizens.

It seems that more recently the Labour party have taken fright and are trying to reduce immigration back to lower levels, but characteristically are not making a very good job of it. Hence, back to ham-fisted efforts like the across-the-board 4 years to 5 change in rules.

At least this makes the context of the rule change easier to see.

[EdgeHillMole]

It seems that more recently the Labour party have taken fright and are trying to reduce immigration back to lower levels, but characteristically are not making a very good job of it. Hence, back to ham-fisted efforts like the across-the-board 4 years to 5 change in rules.

At least this makes the context of the rule change easier to see.

Great, so reduce incoming immigration levels.

But why do it by kicking out the legal hard-working immigrants already here?

Moderator, do you understand that people up for visa extensions are being threatened with deportation?

People have already settled in this country, bought houses, landed permanent jobs or started businesses, paid taxes, and contributed to British society.

It's an extremely sick, twisted, and cruel way to go about reducing levels of immigration. If the labour government have made mistakes, then they should pay for their mistakes, not their victims.

Hence, the need to support the JRs, ESPECIALLY the JR against the November 2006 changes to HSMP Extensions!

[avjones]

Not deportation, surely, but removal?

[EdgeHillMole]

No matter what the legal term, I would call it being kicked out of the country.

[tobiashomer]

It seems that more recently the Labour party have taken fright and are trying to reduce immigration back to lower levels, but characteristically are not making a very good job of it. Hence, back to ham-fisted efforts like the across-the-board 4 years to 5 change in rules.

At least this makes the context of the rule change easier to see.

Surely it is not the tens of thousands of HSMPers and WP-holders that have caused the perceived problem, as those highly-educated individuals have added employment to the UK rather than taken away jobs from citizens. It is the hundreds of thousands of lower-skilled people from Eastern Europe that have got up the nose of the average Britisher; and nothing can be done about them given the Government's open-armed policy (the French were cleverer). To be blunt, you cannot get HSMP as a plumber or mason or minicab-driver.

oh well, this is pointless, arguing with someone who is supposedly knowledgeable about the issues and still feels the way you do.

[JAJ]

Surely it is not the tens of thousands of HSMPers and WP-holders that have caused the perceived problem, as those highly-educated individuals have added employment to the UK rather than taken away jobs from citizens. It is the hundreds of thousands of lower-skilled people from Eastern Europe that have got up the nose of the average Britisher; and nothing can be done about them given the Government's open-armed policy (the French were cleverer). To be blunt, you cannot get HSMP as a plumber or mason or minicab-driver.

oh well, this is pointless, arguing with someone who is supposedly knowledgeable about the issues and still feels the way you do.

I am not convinced that all WP holders have been as "highly educated" as you suggest. In any case your point is valid and nowhere have I said that I thought that the blanket 4 years to 5 rule change was inherently a good idea.

The point I am trying to make is that even a bad decision is not necessarily an illegal one.

[avjones]

No matter what the legal term, I would call it being kicked out of the country.

There is a big difference between deportation and removal!

[try-one]

Going back to the "commercial contract" analogy, the case here with HO changing the 4 to 5 years requirement is a common situation. HO advertised and stated that people could apply for ILR after 4 years on HSMP; the mistake was that on the letters, statements and booklets they failed to use a safer wording such as:
- You can apply for ILR after completing the existing legal requirement
- You can apply for ILR after fullfilling the residency requirements
- if you comply with all the legal requirements you can apply for ILR
or even
- Currently the residency requirement is 4 years for ILR

The people who wrote the documentation on behalf of the HO knew and were used to the fact that the time was 4 years, it had been 4 years for a very long time and everyone expected 4 years to continue being the required lenght of time.

So did the HO create false expectations? YES
did the HO have every right to change the 4 to 5 year rule? YES
did the HO change the conditions of the EC? NO
could the HO have managed this better? YES
would I ever vote for these guys? NO

I was very disappointed when they changed the 4-5 rule, angry and frustrated; gave money for the JR fund, sent emails, complained to my MP, got letter back, stood in front of parliament protesting, told the story to anyone interested....that's all I could do.

*edited

[SYH]

And to add to it, the way it was advertised to me in the usa was that we would like this programme to be a success and as an incentive, ILR will be available at 4 years instead of 5. That was how it was pitched to me. All the hype about HSMP was ILR in 4 years. So I took the risk and I suffered along the way because many employers didn't know what HSMP was and wouldn't hire lots of us in the beginning and we had to struggle. So then when the 4 years comes up, they say, you know what its 5 years now. That's just wrong!

[VictoriaS]

It's even more wrong for the poor guys who completed their first year and found they didn't meet the requirements for the extension so had to go back home. Or people who were here as doctors and found that because of changes to the rules about employing doctors found themselves without work after having studied here for 7 years, and had to go back to their home countries laden with debt which they have little chance of ever paying off.


Victoria

[goldfish]

I think the key change has been a subtle shift in tone from the Home Office. The HSMP was presented as indicating that the UK *wanted* us to settle here. Now the approach is that they want to make settling as difficult as possible. We have to prove that we intend to make the UK our home, but there is no corresponding obligation to show an intention to make this possible. Grrr.

[EdgeHillMole]

There is a big difference between deportation and removal!

Ah, I think I see.

Do you mean those who are deported cannot re-enter, whereas those who are removed have the possiblility of being allowed to later re-enter (Provided of course they satisfy the new, ever-tightening stricter rules)?

[avjones]

There is a big difference between deportation and removal!

Ah, I think I see.

Do you mean those who are deported cannot re-enter, whereas those who are removed have the possiblility of being allowed to later re-enter (Provided of course they satisfy the new, ever-tightening stricter rules)?

Yes. It's not just a pedantic legal difference, I promise you!

If you are the subject of a deportation order, under the Immigration Rules you WILL be refused entry clearance, usually for 5 years.

[SYH]

Yes. It's not just a pedantic legal difference, I promise you!

If you are the subject of a deportation order, under the Immigration Rules you WILL be refused entry clearance, usually for 5 years.

OY Now we are talking about removal. Cmon now, we are talking about the rules changing while you here versus those who brazenly ignore the rules and stay on and shouldn't have.
ILR from 4 to 5 shouldn't be even be considered in the removal category at all.

[avjones]

SYH, I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that there is a real difference between removal and deportation.

[SYH]

SYH, I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that there is a real difference between removal and deportation.

Yes I know. Its just a sore subject. And I don't want us to get off track of what the main concern is!!!

[EdgeHillMole]

ILR from 4 to 5 shouldn't be even be considered in the removal category at all.

Ah, but you see many of those promised ILR at 4 years were then later told it would be 5 years. So they were told they would now need to get an extension. Then they were later told the extension rules had significantly changed so that they no longer qualify for the 5th year extension. So now after 4 years in the UK they can't get ILR and are at risk for removal.

Therefore, the 4 to 5 year change combined with the November 2006 changes does relate to the removal category. Adding the extra year on to the ILR requirements was a very excellent way to weed people out at the end of their 4th year residing in the UK.

If you were not personally one of those faced with removal after your 4th year, then you are one of the fortunate ones. However, there are others who have not been so lucky.

I think many of us were very shocked at the response of the moderator. People are currently facing removal after residing here for several years, and we expected a little bit more sympathy from those running the forums, that's all.

[JAJ]

I think many of us were very shocked at the response of the moderator. People are currently facing removal after residing here for several years, and we expected a little bit more sympathy from those running the forums, that's all.

It was not my intention to give any offence and of course those affected do have my sympathy. I was simply pointing out that it may not necessarily be unlawful ...

[Siggi]

Edgehillmole wrote:
I think many of us were very shocked at the response of the moderator. People are currently facing removal after residing here for several years, and we expected a little bit more sympathy from those running the forums, that's all.

Whilst I don't agree with JAJ points of view on this subject, if you want a shoulder to cry on Edgehillmole, this is not the forum for it.

JAJ has just pointed out the cruel facts of this dispicable bit of law, which I still believe is unfair, un-British and illegal.
Time will tell.