5 years for ILR rule implemented

[bbdivo]

Right please don't shoot me down for this, although this rule does not affect me, I am writing to my MP about it, here is the text of it in case anyone one else wants to tailor it for themselves:

RE: Change of qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain from four to five years for existing work permit holders.

I am writing to you to express my concern over a recent change to the immigration rules (HC974) put forward by the Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP on the 13th March 2006 to take effect on the 3rd of April 2006.

The specific change I am referring to is the one which changes the length of time required to obtain Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the UK for a work permit holder from four to five years. Although this proposed change was announced in February 2002 in the paper ‘Controlling Our Borders: the Five Year Strategy for Asylum and Immigration’ the suddenness of the implementation of this change has left a large number of individuals unfairly affected as a result of it.

This change does not affect me personally as I have already completed my four years as a work permit holder and am now well on my way to becoming a British Citizen, however it affects a large number of individuals who were close to obtaining ILR but now have to wait twelve months upwards to achieve it.

There are numerous benefits awaiting an individual on obtaining ILR, one benefit that immediately comes to mind, is the willingness of Lenders to provide mortgages to such individuals. This goes a long way to establishing one’s home in the United Kingdom. Reaching the end of the four year period is a significant milestone for all immigrants who are looking to settle in the United Kingdom in an employment related category. Having this milestone moved so suddenly for people nearing the completion of this four year period is very unfair.

I am not asking for the rules to be changed back to four years, I am asking that the rules not be applied retrospectively so as not to affect current work permit holders. I am asking that these concerns and suggestions be raised with the Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP. At the very least transitional procedures should be put in place to deal with those individuals who are nearing the completion of their four year period to be dealt with using the old rules.

As I am sure you are aware, Commonwealth Citizens who have long term residence in the United Kingdom (this includes work permit holders) are able to vote in general elections here, this change affects these voters who may be residing in your constituency.

I look forward to your response and your support in this matter.

Yours Faithfully

[Smit]

Kavik,

Before you start panicking, remember all is not lost if you can't get an appointment at a PEO with your tight timelines.

You can always post your application say in the next week and you will be fine as long as the application reaches IND before 3rd April 2006 and is considered by them after the 3 years 11 months period.

My advice to you would be to post the application rather than running around to PEO's in panic mode.

Smit

[Smit]

I agree that the affected people should contribute time, money and whatever it takes to challenge the rules, ultimately many people will end up paying £335 (postal)/£500 (PEO) fees to the IND for the 1 year increase!

Smit

[tutu1005]

I'm amazed to read all the comments by various learned members of this forum. We are here to integrate in this society as well as to contribute to the economy of this country. I think whatever the government is doing is for the betterment of its people as well as its society. So please be positive and it doesn't matter whether we have to wait for an extra year. So we must respect the rulings and immigration rules no matter whatever they are. I hope you'll all understand.
Many thanks for reading.
Ideal

Yes, well if Gandhi took this approach with the British where would India be today. I'm sorry but I don't accept that immigrants to this country should quietly shut up and be grateful for being here. It's a 2-way street. As far as I'm concerned the UK needs us just as much as we need it.

While personally I am grateful for the opportunity to live and work here, I will NOT be quiet when I feel my rights and those of my fellow immigrants are being trampled upon. We are not some subservient underclass of people. We are all intelligent educated people with a voice and if we disagree with the UK government we have every right to voice our disagreement. I don't like this "guest" mentality. We are not guests here, we are tenants and we ALL pay our rent.

Strongly support you. We are here to contribute to the economic, we pay our NI, Tax, spend money, bring in new dimensions of thought, ideas, knowledge, skills etc. We fill the labour market gap and do not claim any benefits. We are "cow" actually, eat only grass but give all milk.
Without ILR, every time we change our jobs, we have to consider about the WP and also it is the waste of the money of companies because they need to apply for their old/new staffs again and again. Some of us might not bother to change the work, even we are suffering from unfair treatment from current company. Without ILR, we are second class. The government should control Britain’s boarder better by change entry standards, like other countries did, Australia, Canada. If they do not want Illegal immigrants and asylum seeker, they should change relevant law but not to change the law for Legal workers. What does this policy bring? Unsatisfactory from all people who are affected, more than half a million? The drop of the ILR applicants this year but raise again next year. Lost confident in the government and even fundamental law system.
If this happened, what else could they change? They have to justify what is the benefit by change 4 to 5?

[gunslinger]

We must act!

I think it is time economic immigrants who contribute to British society had a say in matters affecting them. This forum does a stellar job resolving immigration matters and we as members must act instead of just being onlookers.

The question here (as all will agree) is not of the change of the period from 4 years to 5 years, but of the retrospective effect that it is being applied. We have paid our taxes, been law abiding and are proud to be here contributing to British society. It is time we were paid back in kind-with justice and respect.

I was wondering if the moderators have considered putting this to a vote!

[SidB]

We should ask JCWI to act on our behalf and take this case to the court against HO. I did not find anything on their web-site yet condemning new changes. I think this is clear breach of British law and we should not tolerate it. What if they decide tomorrow to change from 5 to 15 years?!

http://www.jcwi.org.uk/index.html

All,

Eugene has provided a good starting point. The forum looks like a promising place to raise our concerns in addition to what we're doing to raise it with the local MPs.

There is an e-mail address provided on the site (info@jcwi.org.uk). We should all drop them a note to relay our concerns and ask them if they can help. We can even offer to pool in some resources to support them to take our concerns forward.

What do you all say?

Sid

[Chess]

it is gonna be IMPOSSIBLE to reverse this rule - you need to find ways to get a 'payment back' some how...

if you wanna 'play the system' ; go on - you have all my blessing...

as I wrote earlier - i will find all practically reasonable ways to make sure that we dont finacially lose out...

i will employ as many immigrants as I can

[gaurav]

What a shame ????
Ready to input time effort and money !!! Let's fight this evil together....

[sywahu]

I agree with Chess. Almost impossible to reverse this rule or any such immigration rule.

We have to come to terms with it and just last anothe year. The real hassle would be for those who would need a WP extension to last another year!

[dabar]

I agree that it may be almost impossible to reverse the rule, but you should not go down without fighting.

Let your rage be heard.
At least that will make the lawmakers think twice when they make any such stupid rules next time.

[mariosh05]

I don't understand why some people on this site are willing to accept such unfair rule. We came to the UK under an assumption that it will take us 4 years to have a permanent residence and then an additional 1.5 to 2 years to obtain the nationality. I had the choice to apply for a visa to Canada, Australia, or UK under a point based system. I chose the UK.
I pay taxes and NI but I don't benefit from any of the social benefits. Someone on this site stated that we should be grateful to the UK for allowing us to settle here as expat in the gulf region are not allowed to do so. A big difference between us and the expat in the gulf is that we pay taxes and they don't.
I am afraid that nothing will stop the government from increasing the ILR period to 10 years for example. After all, this rule affects only immigrants/foreigners ie second (or should I say third) class citizens who have no influence or power in this country.
I am sorry to say that but applying the new immigration rule retrospecitvely breaches our human rights and is a clear sign of beloved in UK. I bet that they will not dare to introduce a similar rule if it affects british citizens.

[shoegazer]

Here is the text of what I wrote to the jcwi. Please do the same. It is not enough to just grin and bear it.

Sirs:

I am writing to express my deep concern at the new IND immigration rules found at

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en ... ation.html

The relevant part of the rules states that "For all employment-related categories of entry to the UK, and those who have entered under the Ancestry category, the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain (settlement) is now 5 years" (increased from 4).

I am on a 4-year Highly Skilled Migrant Programme visa and my 4 year residency period is due to complete sometime in _______ of this year. Were the rules not retroactive then I (and many others in my situation) would would be on the path to indefinite leave to remain (ILR) which opens up financial benefits such as mortgages, and social benefits inherent in being permanently resident.

I undertook my stay in the UK with a clear understanding of the time constraints and pay full income taxes, council tax, etc. but receive no pension and/or public benefits. Now I am to believe that the goalposts have been moved and yet again we, a silent army of skilled and hard working employees, managers and technicians, will be asked to wait another year. Perhaps even more, if the rules are changed again. Over 150,000 workers in 2005 alone applied to the UK bringing needed skills; the government acknowledged as much by bringing in proposals for "tier 1" migration, however they are penalising those who chose the UK first, and chose to make their careers here, by adding another year and even more "fees" to bear for that privilege.

The expectation was that new rules would affect new migrants, but instead through the back door our hopes of recognition as full and honest citizens have been frustrated.

yours sincerely

Do you not feel the same way? Then do something about it!

If enough of us highlight this gross injustice then someone will act. Canada has had a similar change in the rules which was also made retroactive (see here: http://www.canadaimmigrationvisa.com/newsarti.html). This caused grave concern with Canadian MPs, many of whom were supported by immigrant voting communities. The notion that we are powerless against some faceless bureaucrat is laughable. Get the media aware of this issue - they are hungry for any fresh controversy. Get public opinion on your side - surely you must have some British friends who are sympathetic.

[AC77]

I am now really questioning my decision to come to this country. I think this rule is really going to back fire on them in terms of attracting highly skilled migrants when many other countries (US, canada, australia) are vying for them.

what incentive is there to come to a country where you don't get an equal footing in the society for 5 years (and they talk of integration!), with such a high cost of living and i can surely say not an excellent infrastructure, when at the same time you have countries like Canada giving PR on entry which entitles you all rights and most benefits really making you feel it's your own land, of course there are other problems there but you don't feel being an outsider for so long . I can also comfortably say from my experience living in this country, although relatively short (1 year, HSMP), that the society in this country is divided into parallel worlds and sometimes I can't imagine first generation immigrants integrating and enjoying their lives here as if in their home countries. Anyways, may be this new rule was a spark making me say these things. Excuse me if the tone is harsh, but I don't intend to offend anyone.

Although I am quite far from ILR (Mar' 09, well now Mar 2010), I don't see any point staying here for so long before getting to feel at home, if I could move to US (H1B) or Canada where I believe there's a better quality of life and a better integrated society, surely better than here.

I am laying out my plans here but what I am trying to say is that when they are trying to attract Highly skilled immigrants, this rule is certainly not going help, because it's very natural for highly skilled and qualified prospective immigrants to consider factors like time to settlement before deciding which country to opt.

[Kayalami]

My 0.02 p

I appreciate that this is a sensitive/ complex topic given the (rightly) moral arguement against the retrospective nature of the amendment to the immigration rules in regards to ILR. Its especially a bitter pill for those eligible for ILR within the next few months. For those eligible pre the change its a classic tale of a 'narrow escape' - I've just had a colleaugue obtain their 4 yr HSMP approval yesterday.

Likewise I concur there may be (IMHO very slight) elements of 'Legitimate Expectation' for Judicial Review. I note a poster above makes reference to the Rozahalde (sp) case where the (Canadian) Federal Government settled a class action for retrospectively implementing the scroing matrix of the new Immigration & Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) which severely prejudiced applicants for immigrant visas who submitted prior to the IPRA receiving royal assent. The major difference here is that prior to the IRPA (and this too being a major difference where in UK its simply a statement of changes to the immigration rules) the Federal Immigration Minister presented to Parliament details of transitional arrangements. These arrangements were later found to have been false/effectively masked the real backlog figures - in effect the integrity of parliament was called to question. No such action has occurred here. Likewise note that in the Canadian case it is an ‘Immigrant Visa’ = effectively their ILR hence a more significant aspect of ‘Legitimate Expectation’. It could be argued that just because you have a WP does not mean you will automatically get ILR – you could lose your job, resign etc.

Additionally IMHO the JR issue is outweighed by the key factor that government has consistently applied immigration policy to suit national interests not immigrant interest. This goes as way back as the 1962 and 1968 Act’s to limit immigration from former colonies, which was in effect a 'restrict non white immigrants’ policy due to a backlash by the local populace to the recent retrospective application of the change in WHV conditions. The government regularly stops visa processing at various posts for months on end ostensibly due to resource issues that can often be resolved at short notice. The HSMP scheme IIRC has a caveat that it is open to change at any time to include its scrapping. That the government cannot be seen to be fettered by its own legislation coupled with its long standing position on 'maintaining the integrity of effective immigration controls' that are consistently mentioned in findings for the government by the Appelate Authorities would be yet another argument.

Another poster has mentioned about the settlement period being changed from 12 to 24 months – yet another difference here is that it involves a party with settled status hence the law inherently must treat such an applicant different…in fact it is designed in that very way such that they enjoy privileges that not ‘everyone’ else does. These steps are the pre-cursor to the latest immigration bill and following on from this the ID regime. Given the challenge on this ID regime which the government has faced the JR angle to the ILR is small change . Likewise we need to ask whether the apart from cost and likely lengthy processing time if IND can stop accepting any settlement applications from 'class applicants' as they due in 'case law asylum appeals/JR's' leaving people in limbo for months on end pending a ruling. This would be disastarous for business in regards to travel etc.

On a final note IMHO the current political climate (inherently driven by public attitude towards immigration) coupled with ongoing expansion of the EU (read more readily available labour) commencing with Romania/ Bulgaria in less than nine months time will continue to drive the UK’s immigration policy. It can still be argued that compared to say the US the system here continues to be quite immigrant friendly. I can wager that for every disappointed person with the announcement is someone outside the UK who would trade places with them in an instant.

Of course I’m likewise not surprised at the timing of these changes fitting in to the new fiscal year and the revenue streams this will generate. On a slightly positive note my contacts in the field say there may be tweaks to the transitional arrangements particularly the financial aspects of extension applications but I would expect this to be of little relevance vis a vis the loss of time and accompanying longer term benefits specifically earlier naturalisation.

[lemess]

I am now really questioning my decision to come to this country. I think this rule is really going to back fire on them in terms of attracting highly skilled migrants when many other countries (US, canada, australia) are vying for them.

what incentive is there to come to a country where you don't get an equal footing in the society for 5 years (and they talk of integration!), with such a high cost of living and i can surely say not an excellent infrastructure, when at the same time you have countries like Canada giving PR on entry which entitles you all rights and most benefits really making you feel it's your own land, of course there are other problems there but you don't feel being an outsider for so long . I can also comfortably say from my experience living in this country, although relatively short (1 year, HSMP), that the society in this country is divided into parallel worlds and sometimes I can't imagine first generation immigrants integrating and enjoying their lives here as if in their home countries. Anyways, may be this new rule was a spark making me say these things. Excuse me if the tone is harsh, but I don't intend to offend anyone.

Although I am quite far from ILR (Mar' 09, well now Mar 2010), I don't see any point staying here for so long before getting to feel at home, if I could move to US (H1B) or Canada where I believe there's a better quality of life and a better integrated society, surely better than here.

I am laying out my plans here but what I am trying to say is that when they are trying to attract Highly skilled immigrants, this rule is certainly not going help, because it's very natural for highly skilled and qualified prospective immigrants to consider factors like time to settlement before deciding which country to opt.

I appreciate your disappointment but do remember that getting permanent residence approval for Canada can easily take 3-4 years and US has a strict h-1b quota limit and for people of Indian origin, the green card quotas have been retrogressing forver. It can easily take you 7-8 years to get a green card if you're lucky. A lot of what you say is a case of the grass being greener on the other side. I have friends wanting to leave he US and come to the UK as they are sick of waiting for their quota numbers to move on their green cards forever !

As kayalami says the UK is one of the most immigrant friendly jurisdictions around. 5 year permanent residence periods are the norm in Europe and naturalisation requirements are frequently a lot higher.

Also remember you have no god given right to be allowed to settle in the country in 4 years. The fact that you can get an HSMP type visa which gives you enormous freedom to conduct business and take up employment is itself unusual and innovative.

You are not even immediately affected by this rule so I don't understand why this change sparked such an anti UK diatribe. As I said, compared to most other places, UKimmigration rules are still remarkably progressive and efficient.

[JAJ]

Not entirely true. Commonwealth citizens and I think EU citizens resident in the UK can vote in UK elections.

Citizens of EU member states (other than Cyprus, Malta and the Republic of Ireland) cannot vote in general elections in the UK.

[sywahu]

People have different experiences but overall, this country is quite WP/immigrant-friendly. I certainly didn't feel second class when on WP. Yes there are problems occassionally (mortgages/immigration etc) but again, I CHOSE to come here, I CHOSE to work here and offer my services and get paid for it. I read my WP stamp which said "granted leave to remain to engage in employment...don't change employment without permission....can only stay for 5 years...and don't even think about getting any benefits since you are only temporary..." etc. These contraints inherently make a WP holder "temporary" and you have signed up to be so.

Further to that, IF UK then chooses to grant ILR to temp. WP holders after 4 years and now 5, recognising their contribution, their kids born here and studying here, family etc, thats something I am thankful about to be honest. Of course others might counter that with "don't just zip it and be grateful" which is fair point.

Having said that, this retrospective nature of the 5-year rule implementation is very harsh and unfair indeed. Five years is a VERY long period to wait to get permanent residence and then plan things. Will certainly ward off many skilled people. And to not care about people who would have qualified for ILR in the next few months is....hurtful to say the least.

Perhaps someone in the authorities don't want WP holders to settle here permanently and want to do everything to discourage it? I believe someone did say something along the lines of "WP will no longer be a ticket to settlement".....

[crazychris]

People have different experiences but overall, this country is quite WP/immigrant-friendly. I certainly didn't feel second class when on WP. Yes there are problems occassionally (mortgages/immigration etc) but again, I CHOSE to come here, I CHOSE to work here and offer my services and get paid for it. I read my WP stamp which said "granted leave to remain to engage in employment...don't change employment without permission....can only stay for 5 years...and don't even think about getting any benefits since you are only temporary..." etc. These contraints inherently make a WP holder "temporary" and you have signed up to be so.

Further to that, IF UK then chooses to grant ILR to temp. WP holders after 4 years and now 5, recognising their contribution, their kids born here and studying here, family etc, thats something I am thankful about to be honest. Of course others might counter that with "don't just zip it and be grateful" which is fair point.

Having said that, this retrospective nature of the 5-year rule implementation is very harsh and unfair indeed. Five years is a VERY long period to wait to get permanent residence and then plan things. Will certainly ward off many skilled people. And to not care about people who would have qualified for ILR in the next few months is....hurtful to say the least.

Perhaps someone in the authorities don't want WP holders to settle here permanently and want to do everything to discourage it? I believe someone did say something along the lines of "WP will no longer be a ticket to settlement".....

If you are single, you will never feel second class when on WP. However as long as you get married and have children, you will find the huge difference between WP holder and PR holder. The reasons are already explained by many people on this website.

[lemess]

Having said that, this retrospective nature of the 5-year rule implementation is very harsh and unfair indeed. Five years is a VERY long period to wait to get permanent residence and then plan things. Will certainly ward off many skilled people. And to not care about people who would have qualified for ILR in the next few months is....hurtful to say the least.

Perhaps someone in the authorities don't want WP holders to settle here permanently and want to do everything to discourage it? I believe someone did say something along the lines of "WP will no longer be a ticket to settlement".....

Why is 5 years "harsh" and a "very long" time ? That is pretty much the norm for most countries. As I said that is roughly how long it takes for most countries round the world to give someone unlimited rights to live there and effectively become a long term member of society. Objectively speaking I think people are reacting to the increase from 4 years to 5 but the figure of 5 years on its own is not particularly harsh or long.

Again, I think everyone who comes to the UK on a work permit or other type of employment visa has to appreciate it is a temporary right to work in this country- not a ticket to permanent settlement. Much like the H-1B visa which only allows you the right to work in the US for upto 6 years but is in no way linked to the green card process. In the US staying in the country for 6 years on H-1B gives you no automatic right to get a green card at all. Also appreciate that in the UK, all you have to do to acquire permanent residence is simply fulfill a residence criteria and show continuing employment. It is a remarkably quick process. In places like Canada, the US and Australia you have to go through a much more bureaucratic procedure involving police/FBI checking etc. before you are able to become a permanent resident. I would still take the UK's "5 years and you pretty much always get ILR" system anyday.

As Kayalami pointed out, the system is trying to maximise utility for the UK not the work permit holder. I am not convinced it is in the UK's best interest to offer permanent settlement to everyone who comes here under the current work permit system. Asking people to integrate, show commitment to the UK over a 5 year period is an entirely reasonable way of judging suitablity for permanent residence.

[lemess]

If you are single, you will never feel second class when on WP. However as long as you get married and have children, you will find the huge difference between WP holder and PR holder.

I don't see anything wrong with that. Why should someone coming to the UK for a temporary work visa have an automatic right to permanent settlement ? Name a country which does this.

Not everyone who gets a work permit in a 2-3 period is necessarily an ideal long term permanent resident. This system allows the UK to manage its resourcing needs flexibly and I am all for it.

The UK is not the only country where this is the case. The US is the same - a work visa does not give you any right to become a permanent resident. I think the expectation that has been built up over the years is due to a remarkably friendly system (where all you had to do to get ILR was see out 4 years on a work permit) every work permit holder entering the UK was on some sort of fast track to settlement.

[mhunjn]

Have you lived in Canada and US for a considerable amount of time which is atleast equiv. to the time spent in UK?...because without that you can't be qualified to comment about living conditions there!...

Nowhere in the WP/ILR process is it mentioned that you have a gauranteed right to citizenship...

Yes, it is unfortunate that these rules have been changed retrospectively, but you would be the least affected by them, having been in the country for only a year!... think about people who will miss out on the opportunity for ILR by a few weeks...

How can you integrate if all you think is your own personal benefits?...

I can't imagine first generation immigrants integrating and enjoying their lives here as if in their home countries.

It's always difficult for the first generation to integrate 100%... that's just the way of life and is true everywhere in the world!...

what incentive is there to come to a country where you don't get an equal footing in the society for 5 years (and they talk of integration!), ....................... at the same time you have countries like Canada giving PR on entry which entitles you all rights and most benefits really making you feel it's your own land, of course there are other problems there but you don't feel being an outsider for so long . I can also comfortably say from my experience living in this country, although relatively short (1 year, HSMP), that the society in this country is divided into parallel worlds and sometimes I can't imagine first generation immigrants integrating and enjoying their lives here as if in their home countries.

[basis]

The UK is not the only country where this is the case. The US is the same - a work visa does not give you any right to become a permanent resident. I think the expectation that has been built up over the years is due to a remarkably friendly system (where all you had to do to get ILR was see out 4 years on a work permit) every work permit holder entering the UK was on some sort of fast track to settlement.

Lemess - You are so spot on in this and previous post. Just to add one more point to the UKs ILR system - you do not depend on your employer to file for the ILR. Whereas most Green Card application based on work visas have to be thru their employer. Again professional qualifications is so much important aspect of it. So many checks - no guranteed period of outcome, no objective criterion. In the UK both ILR and Naturalisation is just a matter of form filling.

One of my friend went to the US an year before me - still has not got his green card. And citizenship queue is 10 years long. I find UK is the most imiigrant friendly nation - both socially and from immigration law and admin point. Grass is always green on other side ........

[abcd1]

Immigration is indeed a 2-way system!

When employers claim that "We are an equal opportunity employer" - they lie at the first place! How many times you have refused a job because you need a WP for the job?

All WP holders are qualified doctors, engineers, scientists etc. Why not stop the work permit system altogether - if UK has so many knowledgeable person to do all sorts of jobs?

They can't because

[1] UK does need qualified people from overseas - without them their system will just halt (medical, computer).
[2] WP holders do good jobs at low cost.

If I overstay my visa in UK, I become illegal immigrant.
On my backpage of work permit, it is clearly written that one can apply for settlement after 48 months. Now they denounce that. Goverment still don't become corrupt!

WP holders will pay tax & NI so that lazy UK citizens can enjoy life on dole.

Ireland gives PR in 3 years
Canada gives PR on landing as immigrant
In USA one can file green card application after 3 years on H1B/L1

Those who say that WP holders should not have any right to settlement - I like to ask them "Why do you people believe that you have right to benefits and pensions?"

There is a famous proverb-
First they will laugh at you. Then they will ignore you. Then they will fight with you. And then you will win.

Now govt. is fighting with us....

[tutu1005]

Having said that, this retrospective nature of the 5-year rule implementation is very harsh and unfair indeed. Five years is a VERY long period to wait to get permanent residence and then plan things. Will certainly ward off many skilled people. And to not care about people who would have qualified for ILR in the next few months is....hurtful to say the least.

Perhaps someone in the authorities don't want WP holders to settle here permanently and want to do everything to discourage it? I believe someone did say something along the lines of "WP will no longer be a ticket to settlement".....

Why is 5 years "harsh" and a "very long" time ? That is pretty much the norm for most countries. As I said that is roughly how long it takes for most countries round the world to give someone unlimited rights to live there and effectively become a long term member of society. Objectively speaking I think people are reacting to the increase from 4 years to 5 but the figure of 5 years on its own is not particularly harsh or long.

Again, I think everyone who comes to the UK on a work permit or other type of employment visa has to appreciate it is a temporary right to work in this country- not a ticket to permanent settlement. Much like the H-1B visa which only allows you the right to work in the US for upto 6 years but is in no way linked to the green card process. In the US staying in the country for 6 years on H-1B gives you no automatic right to get a green card at all. Also appreciate that in the UK, all you have to do to acquire permanent residence is simply fulfill a residence criteria and show continuing employment. It is a remarkably quick process. In places like Canada, the US and Australia you have to go through a much more bureaucratic procedure involving police/FBI checking etc. before you are able to become a permanent resident. I would still take the UK's "5 years and you pretty much always get ILR" system anyday.

As Kayalami pointed out, the system is trying to maximise utility for the UK not the work permit holder. I am not convinced it is in the UK's best interest to offer permanent settlement to everyone who comes here under the current work permit system. Asking people to integrate, show commitment to the UK over a 5 year period is an entirely reasonable way of judging suitablity for permanent residence.

Thank you for your “kind reminder” that we are only temporarily allowed to work and stay here. We never denied that we do not agree with it. However the fact is, if there is no promise in the immigration rule of the UK to say that after 4 years WP/HSMP you could apply ILR, I believe most of us probably will never come to this country (high living cost and low salary comparing with US and some other country) or have left this country for a long time. There is a difference between betray the promise and tell the world – hi, come here but there is no guarantee that you will get PR after whatever the years (Like US does and also US is the NO1 economic country but UK is, well probably 6th?). One is cheating and another one is trade- you like it, you come otherwise do not come.

We do not mind 4 to 5, but we do mind cheating. If the rule is to apply, it has to make sure that the people who have been promised should not be affected. Otherwise, it is cheating. Some of us have spent nearly 8 year here (high education + WP). We could spend our 4/8 years well somewhere else. Like Canada- normal process before entry with PR is 18months and after that applicants need to stay in Canada for 3 years for nationality, max. 4.5 for nationality. Like Australia- normal process before entry with PR is 8-18 months, (one of my friends only used 7 months) after that applicants need to stay in Australia for 2 years for nationality, totally max. 3.5 year for nationality. As I have just said, US told us that we might not get anything after Hb1, so I did not choose to go there.

We do appreciate the UK is willing to provide opportunity for us to work here but we do insist 1, we are not asylum seeker, we could choose other countries if this country is not suitable for us. 2, we come here with trust, with believe that after 4 years hard work we will get what the UK has promised. 3, the UK needs us as well. As I said before, NHS is begging for clinical professional from all over the world, the unbalance of UK labour market is begging all other professionals, we are needed here. If we all leave today, I am sure you will change your idea instantly.

Do not expect us will knee and kiss the feet just because “UK IS IMMIGRANT FRIENDLY COUNTRY WHO ALLOWS YOU TO STAY HER TEMPORARILY”. Some of us has spend their 3 years in university, 1 year in Master and nearly 4 years in the work and now those who has done so will get their ILR as some people just lived here for 10 years. How unfair!! Why should we after contributing our tuition fees here (4 years, if overseas probably about £40,000) and paying our tax and NI here but get the exact the same thing as some people just lived here for 10 years??

Not to mention the direct or indirect unfair treatment we have received, we would say that it is rubbish to say that the UK is LEGAL Immigrants friendly now!!!

At least, I am doing my immigration to Canada now. I will not need to lower my head to appreciate your kindness in the near future and will still contribute but to the country who recognise me and appreciate me as I appreciate her.

[basis]

Not entirely true. Commonwealth citizens and I think EU citizens resident in the UK can vote in UK elections.

Citizens of EU member states (other than Cyprus, Malta and the Republic of Ireland) cannot vote in general elections in the UK.

Thanks JAJ for accuracy and completeness. I was not sure about it which states exactly.