long residency application and deportation

[tammi]

Hi All,

I've read so many cases of refusal of long residency ILR application for one reason or another given by the home office.
What I would really like to know is how many of these case result in actual removal or deportation.

I've heard of cases where people on short residency and with criminal record are being released from detention without being deported. And so I wonder if despite initial refusal by HO for long residency ILR application, are they are eventually granted some kind of leave to remain -- maybe based on settled private life or something like date.

I would have thought that it will be really inhumane of the home office to send a person who has been living in the uk for over 14 years just like that.

Does anyone have a thought on this?? I understand what the law says, but It will be nice to know what is happening out there in reality


Thank you

[Pat10]

Hi Tammi
I did wonder about the same thing. I applied under the 14 year rule, was refused by HO, but appeal was allowed by AIT.

Apart from my passport being retained what worried me sick was that I was served with a form called IS151A and given temporaly admission restrictions namely to reside at my address and report to an immigration centre every month end. On the form it stated in clear terms that I was a person who would be detained at any time. I felt this was a monitoring mechanism and they would pick me up any time.

I would have thought that somebody being here for that length of period surely cannot be deported but the rules are changing so fast that anything is possible these days. Just make sure your case is watertight and as far as I know under the 14 year year rule HO is looking for reasons to say NO, but remember AIT is looking for reasons to say YES to you.

[karunanayake]

Apart from my passport being retained what worried me sick was that I was served with a form called IS151A and given temporaly admission restrictions namely to reside at my address and report to an immigration centre every month end. On the form it stated in clear terms that I was a person who would be detained at any time. I felt this was a monitoring mechanism and they would pick me up any time.

hi pat10
To be truefull with you the immigration doesnt care the slightest about how long uve been here..My husband was here for nearly 10yrs i was married to him for 5 of those years and we have 3 kids together he was sent back in march he was issued with the IS151A and was told to report to the immi every week he did that for nearly 2 years then on the 12th march he went to sign and was detained and sent to a detention centre..no warnings or anything it was very upsetting so all i have to say is try and get your situation sorted before they do the same to you as the detention centres are horrible places...

[Pat10]

Hi karunanayake
Indeed! Its a very traumatic experience for one to go through. However I appealed the case and AIT's determination is that I should be given ILR. Am simply waiting for my documents from HO since they have not asked for a reconsideration.

I hope you, your kids and your husband are reunited soon. All the best

[Jeff Albright]

Tammi
It depends on the situation.
If the person has knowingly lived illegally in the country no matter for no matter how long, I cannot see anything inhumane for the authorities in that country to remove him even after 20 years. It is entirely up to the state to decide to grant you residence or not.
Every country has absolutely legitimate right to regulate the entry of foreign nationals on their territory and they have created the corresponding legislation to achieve this. Having been accepted for the residency in that country is a privilege and not the right for that foreigner to remain there. Respecting your human rights does not oblige the particular country to grant you the residence on their own terrirory unless there are situations when you cannot return to your own country because of facing risk of being tortured and killed (that will make you a refugee).
Any person who does not respect and abide by the rules must bear responsibility. If you want to apply for the residency in a particular country, be kind as to follow all the rules and you will get it. This is just as simple.

In Australia, for example, there are no 7, 10 or 14 years rule or any concessions like these. I would say that this country has the model immigration system, so simple and transparent. This is why it works so perfectly.
The Australian Migration Act gives powers to the indefinite mandatory detention of any illegal non-citizens. I have read that a woman from Samoa was arrested and detained after 16 years of illegal residence here. She has spent over 2 years in detention with her children, two of them are Australian citizens. It appears that she will still be removed to Samoa with all her children, including those having Australian citizenship. Although her children with Australian citizenship can return at any time, her own application for family reunion will not even be considered until she has repaid all the costs of her 2-year detention (over $80,000) to the Government.
The illegals arriving without a passport or forged documents that does not allow to establish their true identity or nationality face a lifelong detention in Australia.

The UK Immigration system is a lot softer and that is the reason why it is why the ministers say that the Government has lost control of immigration. It is because there are so many illegals who think they will get away with breaking the rules and hoping delusively that they will stay for X number of years and "earn" the right to remain there.

On the other hand, if you remain in the country for 10 years or longer because the Home Office itself was guilty of delays, losing your documents, and you have been chasing the outcome of your application all along without any luck, that is a completely different story and this is of course when your other rights have to be taken into account.

Regards

Jeff

[William Blake]

Tammi

In Australia, for example, there are no 7, 10 or 14 years rule or any concessions like these. I would say that this country has the model immigration system, so simple and transparent. This is why it works so perfectly.
The Australian Migration Act gives powers to the indefinite mandatory detention of any illegal non-citizens. I have read that a woman from Samoa was arrested and detained after 16 years of illegal residence here. She has spent over 2 years in detention with her children, two of them are Australian citizens. It appears that she will still be removed to Samoa with all her children, including those having Australian citizenship. Although her children with Australian citizenship can return at any time, her own application for family reunion will not even be considered until she has repaid all the costs of her 2-year detention (over $80,000) to the Government.
The illegals arriving without a passport or forged documents that does not allow to establish their true identity or nationality face a lifelong detention in Australia.


Jeff

Feel sick just reading that. And you think that's a good thing? Is that showing regard for your fellow human being. Be glad that an accident of nature put you in the country and the privelidge position you were born into. Bet if that was your mother suffering like that you wouldn't feel so good. Remember your own words on your judgement day.

[Jeff Albright]

Remember your own words on your judgement day.

What "my" words, judge what and for what?! Dude, either you a complete unmitigated nitwit, or you simply don't understand English?

[kg1983]

He is right Jeff. Its pure Western hypocrisy to host "Make Poverty History" whilst being ruthless to the very people whose foreign remmitances put bread and butter on the table of millions of people in third world countries. I am all for immigration controls but at the same time I also believe that noone should be made to live in a limbo for a very long time. The governments can take measures to ensure that new immigrants dont recourse to public funding, earn and pay taxes. The government usually respond to venomous headlines of the Daily Mail when they try to appear tough.

And I trust Australians to come up with ruthless acts like indefinite detention of irregular migrants considering their appaling record on the treatment of immigrants - they leave people to die on high sea. Even though British government appears to be tough towards illegal immigrants, they still are reasonable (well ocassionally) and the British public in general was very friendly towards immigrants prior to the massive influx of Eastern Europeans. All of a sudden Brits feel they have been swamped by foreigners and they have a right to be concerned but that concern must be reasonable and should NOT penalise immigrants already living here for a long time, illegally or legally. Whereas Australians, the regime has changed. I hope Australian Labour will do something to prove that they have some human compassion and every life matters, not just Australian!

[Pat10]

The illegals arriving without a passport or forged documents that does not allow to establish their true identity or nationality face a lifelong detention in Australia.

Maybe Australia, even during these modern times of lightening speed communications and awareness has not received the message that most of the rest of the world has subscribed to human rights conventions!

[Jeff Albright]

He is right Jeff.

He was right about what? About Judgement Day to the Australain Government??
Or my own? Looks like nothing more but a dumb moron's opinion.

Its pure Western hypocrisy to host "Make Poverty History" whilst being ruthless to the very people whose foreign remmitances put bread and butter on the table of millions of people in third world countries.

No ruthlessness - there are international humanitarian programmes available. Also there are the Refugee's Convention. For example, genuine refugees have full protection rights in Australia like anywhere else.

I am all for immigration controls but at the same time I also believe that noone should be made to live in a limbo for a very long time.

No one is in fact made to live in limbo - Governments set the rules for admission and for the privilege of living in the particular country if you have skills that needed in that country, family in that country or if you are seeking protection as a refugee. If you don't there is no right for you to be there, not now, not in 20 or 40 years. If you choose to stay knowingly in breach and create the "limbo" to yourself - why whould you have an expectation on the part of the Government to hand you over the resident rights for you knowingly infringing the law while thousands of others work hard to follow it?? What makes your case so special that you should be allowed to jump over the standard practices and procedures?? It is simple to understand and follow the rules and procedures right from the beginning and be admitted for a particular purpose. If you do not want or do not qualify - work towards it in order to fulfil the criteria. You have to work for everything you do in your life. Sometimes it may be a very hard work. There is no free cheese in this world and waiting for someone to bring it on the plate to you is quite a daft idea.

And I trust Australians to come up with ruthless acts like indefinite detention of irregular migrants considering their appaling record on the treatment of immigrants

What is RUTHLESS here??? Why should I welcome those who deliberately breaking the law in my home????? Why shall I allow them to get away with it while others being genuine waiting patiently in the queue for admission?? Just follow the rules and welcome. It is just that simple.
If I start accepting everyone just like this - will my native population like it?? Or will those hundreds of thousands waiting to sneak in will believe that I have lost control of my system and now they can invade my borders??
Why shall I use the money collected from the taxes of my hardworking population to pay to deal with those offenders??

- they leave people to die on high sea.

Again, why should it be my responsibility and why should I be compassionate to those breaking rules in my own home? Why do those have to risk their lives to use these extreme measures while there is a simple and straightforward process to apply to come lawfully and peacefully???

[Jeff Albright]

Maybe Australia, even during these modern times of lightening speed communications and awareness has not received the message that most of the rest of the world has subscribed to human rights conventions!

You just seem to be completely missing the point about the Human Rights.
There is no provision within the Human Rights Convention to set obligations on a particular country to respect someone human rights by allowing them to establish the residence on its own territory. I would suggest that you read the Human Rights Act and also the case law.

[ciaramc]

Im sorry JEFF but I can not believe what you are saying! The reason that people risk living illegally for so many years!(which is not easy for them as they cannot return to see their families) is because they are trying to better themselves and their families! These people are from some of the poorest countries in the world.

I know if eveybody was to think like this immigration would be a disaster but these people risk there lives to get to places like Australia and Europe because they have no other choice!

We really do not know how lucky we are, to be born on the right side of the world!

And as for Australia a nation of immigrants well shame on them!!!!

[Wanderer]

I'm from the poorest part of North West England so did I go and insist on residency in Stockbroker belt Surrey for a better life? No, I stuck it out here.

Did my mother and fathers families leave the UK when Hitler threatened for a better life? No, they stuck it out here.

No one has any right to illegally enter another country and demand the right to live there, like Jeff says it makes a mockery of those who are here legally an honestly.

Why not stay at home and fight to improve their birth countries instead of looking on a map for 'good place to live' and entering illegally.

[ciaramc]

Oh believe me I know what you mean about sticking it out! My mother and father did as well! They were not rich and they had to raise their family!

But we have had opportunities that people from third world countries don't have!

Have you even been to these places? Seen how these people live ? Well I have and its not very nice so Im sorry but I understand why there is illegal immigration! And I do have sympathy for them! They don't leave their home countries never to return they try to make money to make a better life for their children so they will not have to struggle like they did!

[Pat10]

Pat10 wrote:

Maybe Australia, even during these modern times of lightening speed communications and awareness has not received the message that most of the rest of the world has subscribed to human rights conventions!

Jeff Albright wrote:
You just seem to be completely missing the point about the Human Rights.
There is no provision within the Human Rights Convention to set obligations on a particular country to respect someone human rights by allowing them to establish the residence on its own territory. I would suggest that you read the Human Rights Act and also the case law.

Am sorry its You who has missed the point and to quote a quote. ''Dude, either you a complete unmitigated nitwit, or you simply don't understand English?'' Am not here banging on about The Human Rights Coventions, Article 8 or case laws per say. The blatant statement that Australia can incacerate for LIFE illegals who can't prove their identity on arrival is what the problem is. For life?? Come On !!??
You don't have to have read and studied any law to realise that a so called civilised and democratic nation is not applying human rights' and common sense..Period!

[kg1983]

Seems as if Jeff is suggesting that if someone flees their homeland for whatever reason, whether economic or to seek asylum if they are dying out there on high sea then let them. In short if someone doesnt have a visa or proper documentation and the government of the day has a policy of destitution and/or ultimate death penalty then its not a problem because he judged them to be "illegal" and people who "broke the law". In his view its OK for people with no documentation or residency permit to die! May be it isnt so "straightforward" as you put it for people to get entry. Read somewhere on this board most visitors visas are being refused to Iraqis because of obvious reasons - ECOs know they are not going to come back because of the situation in Iraq. Who would in their sane minds would risk their life to go to Australia or anywhere else if the legal route was open for them.

He was right about the lack of human compassion in people like you - this is what is wrong with the world today. I dont live in a wonderland where I assume that people do not deceive etc but I also know that people who flee their homes have sometime genuine needs. It sickens me when some people bluntly lie to get welfare benefits but it sickens me even more when people living in Western comforts can even begin to compare their so-called "problems" to the problems and struggle faced by people living in third world countries. Its easy to lecture people on how they should work to achieve but then some people are not born in a country where basics such as healthcare, education etc are free.

I am glad I live in a country where the government, though often accused of being ineffecient, dont leave people to die, is not ruthless like Australian government and has immigration policies that at least aim to strike a balance between firm and fair. The country that has independent pressure groups, refugee organisations and some sort of regularisation practices to give people the second chance to build their lives.

Additionally, there are thousands of Australians who are working illegally in this country and thousands of Brits working illegally in Australia. Now that one has to admit is simply breaking the law. BBC reports "the main reason for the number of illegal British workers is they're having far too much fun to leave". This clearly shows why someone from West decides to stay illegally and why someone from Iraq, afghanistan or any third world country would decide to overstay their visa.

[Jeff Albright]

The blatant statement that Australia can incacerate for LIFE illegals who can't prove their identity on arrival is what the problem is. For life?? Come On !!??

yes, for gods sake get a life - why on earth did you come to the country without documents??????????? You don't have to study the law to understand that it is a criminal offence leading to custodial sentence to present yourself without a passport at the airport on arrival in the UK as well as in any other country in the world!!! No passport - no entry.
No one is forcing you to come here - why did you come??? You can have all your human rights - go back where you came from and have your human rights respected there. have your identity and passport sorted out and come back as any one else under the rules and regulations!! If you are refusing to return where you come from and refuse to declare your true identity - a further offence - goes without saying that detention will be an appropritate action.

[Wanderer]

Oh believe me I know what you mean about sticking it out! My mother and father did as well! They were not rich and they had to raise their family!

But we have had opportunities that people from third world countries don't have!

Have you even been to these places? Seen how these people live ? Well I have and its not very nice so Im sorry but I understand why there is illegal immigration! And I do have sympathy for them! They don't leave their home countries never to return they try to make money to make a better life for their children so they will not have to struggle like they did!

I too have sympathy, no one wants to see another human being suffer certainly not me but we all have accept that's the way of the world at the moment, some are rich, some are poor. Letting people enter willy-nilly is ultimately going to cause serious problems, there is not enough good places to live to go around.

I am reminded of the probably not true story of the shipwrecked passenger in a lifeboat, possibly a Titanic story, lifeboat is full, but there are people in the water trying to climb in and unwittingly capsizing the lifeboat. The Captain of the boat has no choice but to abandon them and let them drown, or everybody drowns. To me, this is like the UK, it's already full, tiny, tiny island and ok, times are good at the moment, but like is oft mentioned in similar arguments to this on this board, what happens when things aren't so good and everyone wants their State Benefit entitlement? The ship will sink.

[OL7MAX]

Did my mother and fathers families leave the UK when Hitler threatened for a better life? No, they stuck it out here.

I know exactly what you mean. They fought for freedom and to protect this country. It was a hard war. My grandfather left his better life in India to help your folk defend against Hitler. To help your folk fight for freedom.

He paid the ultimate price.

He fought alongside people from many different countries. Many of those people died.

People whose children don't enjoy the freedoms you do.

[Wright]

Australian took the country which didn't belong to them.They overstay and kill all the natives and put some new laws.

To take on your argument that no matter how long you stay in country
you have got no right whatsover as long as you arrive there illegally.
. I t would means we needs to ask aboriginals about whether all other immigrants should stay or not including you and other people who have been there for ages.

Tammi
It depends on the situation.
If the person has knowingly lived illegally in the country no matter for no matter how long, I cannot see anything inhumane for the authorities in that country to remove him even after 20 years. It is entirely up to the state to decide to grant you residence or not.
Every country has absolutely legitimate right to regulate the entry of foreign nationals on their territory and they have created the corresponding legislation to achieve this. Having been accepted for the residency in that country is a privilege and not the right for that foreigner to remain there. Respecting your human rights does not oblige the particular country to grant you the residence on their own terrirory unless there are situations when you cannot return to your own country because of facing risk of being tortured and killed (that will make you a refugee).
Any person who does not respect and abide by the rules must bear responsibility. If you want to apply for the residency in a particular country, be kind as to follow all the rules and you will get it. This is just as simple.

In Australia, for example, there are no 7, 10 or 14 years rule or any concessions like these. I would say that this country has the model immigration system, so simple and transparent. This is why it works so perfectly.
The Australian Migration Act gives powers to the indefinite mandatory detention of any illegal non-citizens. I have read that a woman from Samoa was arrested and detained after 16 years of illegal residence here. She has spent over 2 years in detention with her children, two of them are Australian citizens. It appears that she will still be removed to Samoa with all her children, including those having Australian citizenship. Although her children with Australian citizenship can return at any time, her own application for family reunion will not even be considered until she has repaid all the costs of her 2-year detention (over $80,000) to the Government.
The illegals arriving without a passport or forged documents that does not allow to establish their true identity or nationality face a lifelong detention in Australia.

The UK Immigration system is a lot softer and that is the reason why it is why the ministers say that the Government has lost control of immigration. It is because there are so many illegals who think they will get away with breaking the rules and hoping delusively that they will stay for X number of years and "earn" the right to remain there.

On the other hand, if you remain in the country for 10 years or longer because the Home Office itself was guilty of delays, losing your documents, and you have been chasing the outcome of your application all along without any luck, that is a completely different story and this is of course when your other rights have to be taken into account.

Regards

Jeff

[Wanderer]

Australian took the country which didn't belong to them.They overstay and kill all the natives and put some new laws.

Same is true everywhere if you go back far enough.

Perhaps the World is owned by Thargs from the planet Tharg, where they have four moons, a green atmosphere, and a different shaped gear-knob on the Ford Ka.

[OL7MAX]

So how far do you think it's OK to go, Wanderer? WWII?

[johnboy096]

What was happening on this thread on that day?

Did someone put something in everyones tea? lol

Just as a side note, my great-grandfather on my mothers side fought in Iraq in WWI and in Africa in WWII.

And my grandfather on my fathers side was a POW in Burma...

Remember that around a one and a half million Indian (and now Pakistani) Soldiers died for Great Britain!

Peace!