5 years for ILR rule implemented

[lemess]

I am not going to argue with you anymore Lemess , but I really suspect you are writing on behalf of some authorities here because your idea of we- as immigrants have to accept whatever happened to us， is so strong! I would rather use my time to support the action.

OK. Just for the record I am an immigrant myself and not a member of "Migrationwatch"

I am not suggesting immigrants accept whatever is doled out. My point was simply that you have to step back and think how your situation will be viewed by those not affected by it and factor that into any action. I am also pointing out that going on message boards and letting loose anti UK diatribes ( as some have done) may make you feel good for a while but is not going to change anything. if anything it will alienate people who might otherwise have been sympathetic.

The final thing I have pointed out is before any action is taken people need to agree on exactly what they are campaigning for because without that it is very difficult to see what changes people would like to see made.

That is obviously a point of view you don't want to hear. That's perfectly OK and understandable.

[lynn132]

Lemess has a good and valid point. While none of us like the new situation, and we all seem to agree that the retrospective nature of it, as well as the announcement just three weeks before implementation is not fair, we have to remember that we, as immigrants, are enjoying a PRIVILEGE in being allowed to live and work in a foreign country. We can, and should, point out where appropriate that sometimes the system is bureaucratic and does not take into consideration our individual needs. But the immigration system is not there to serve our needs, it is there to serve the needs of the UK. Your average Briton will not see this as a terrible burden, just as an inconvenience, despite how complicated it may make our lives. And honestly, getting worked up about it will not change anything.

Remember, we made a choice to come live here.

[shoegazer]

I think lemess just enjoys playing devil's advocate

tutu1005, I've mailed my MP (Simon Hughes, Lib Dem - Southwark, he has his own website http://www.simonhughes.org.uk. Yes I know your MP probably receives hundreds of emails a day. Again this goes back to the angle you want to attack - illegal immigrants are being given all the headlines, what happens when someone plays by the rules? They get tricked. I'm not saying this is the only legitimate line to follow.

ALso be realistic. The rules laid before parliament would take a miracle to reverse. But this does not mean you can't make your displeasure known. I know a few people in my situation who are afraid of being "singled out" for speaking up about it. Believe me, that won't happen unless you chain yourself to a lamppost in Croydon or something.

[ezh]

[quote][quote="shoegazer"]I think lemess just enjoys playing devil's advocate [/quote]

shoegazer,
with respect to you, I disagree. How would you comment the rumor that the retirement age will soon be changed from 65 to 67 and then to 70? There is a necessety for such a change from the country's future economic stability point of view. When it will be anounced it will be considered as a retrospective and unfair decision by all of us! There will be no way to escape from it but accept it!

[K2004]

My point was simply that you have to step back and think how your situation will be viewed by those not affected by it and factor that into any action.

Good morning,

As i said 3 times, i am british, i am not affected by this, and i dont know personally anyone who is affected by this rule, but i just feel its unfair, maybe because i am migrant myself, maybe because i recently naturalised British, but i think lots of others should feel the same as i do.

i agree with Lemess, about finding what are we complaining about exactly and we do we want.

[shoegazer]

I think lemess just enjoys playing devil's advocate

shoegazer,
with respect to you, I disagree. How would you comment the rumor that the retirement age will soon be changed from 65 to 67 and then to 70? There is a necessety for such a change from the country's future economic stability point of view. When it will be anounced it will be considered as a retrospective and unfair decision by all of us! There will be now way to escape from it but accept it!

Hi ezh,

I really can't comment on the pensions and retirement debate as I do not understand how that works. However I do know that people working in the UK have a right to expect their NI contributions will go towards a basic pension once they hit their retirement age. Imagine if that contribution were suddenly doubled, ie in addition to their existing contribution they have to pay again before receiving their pension. This in effect is what will happen to people on HSMP/WP who are caught out by having permits that do not cover the new 5 year rule - new extension required, and I imagine, more stress if denied. Imagine them not being able to get a mortgage, or start a business or even travel more than eight months a year - being second class citizens for another year. Why must we accept it?

[lynn132]

[quote="being second class citizens for another year. Why must we accept it?[/quote]

Second-class citizens? We ARE NOT citizens AT ALL unless we stay here legally for however many years and take the citizenship test and file the application. We all accepted that when we decided to emigrate.

[mhunjn]

Because you weren't forced to come to this country... you made your decision voluntarily keeping in mind your interests and benefits at that time.
Similarly, the govt makes/changes policy to suit their interest and the interest of the country... not for the interest of the non-setteld immigrants whose only purpose to come to this country is for their own benefit!... It's sad, but true.

Why is so difficult for people to understand?...

Why must we accept it?

[K2004]

Because you weren't forced to come to this country... you made your decision voluntarily keeping in mind your interests and benefits at that time.

is this the same government that made Voluntarily decsion to occupy other countries and go to war??? and what was the pupose of it? that was for their own benefit i beleive...

there is a mutual agreement between immigrant and the UK country, if they were not needed desperatly then they will not be welcomed at the first place,I can find you hundred of employers who will go bust if the immigrant will stop coming here, the govt should make changes to policy according to the voters wish. by adding extra 12 months, those immigrant wont return home for sure, but their integration process into the society will be slower, and thats may have some negative effects, have anyone thought of what was the puropse behinfd extending the time to 5 years rather than 4? surely because they are going to follow it up with another law making it extremely difficult to get a work permit for longer than 4 years. otherwise whats the difference? another reason is to stop all immigrants from asking for ILR after staying 4 years, as lots of them are allowed to come here visa free for 4 years period.

why is it difficult for people to understand?

Another thing, i presume that everyone is going to rush and apply for ILR before the implemntation for this policy, same what happen when the Britishcitizenship test was introduced. so decsions are going to be slower, and a bcak log for those who applied before and after will be created... a mess again.

[tvt]

I am also not affected by this rule but it hurts me to see fellow immigrants treated so unfairly.

There is another aspect which was not widely discussed:

These rules have managed in fact to change the UK nationality legislation using adminstrative power to bypass parliament.

British Nationality Act requires 5 year residence period for naturalisation (inc. 1 year at ILR status). The rules have now changed the requirement to 6 years. Any such change should only be made by parliament.

[lynn132]

This was brought to Parlaiment - on 10 March I believe.

[mhunjn]

Precisely... I think UK is finding that they can plug a big gap in their labour (skilled & unskilled) market by people from within the expanded EU. So their need for labour from other regions is reducing.

Still, I believe that they shouldn't have done this retrospectively.

if they were not needed desperatly then they will not be welcomed at the first place,

[abcd1]

At least some outside UK newspaper reported it

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/immigr ... 13903.html

This line is interesting

If no objections are made to the rules within 40 days they are considered to have been passed by Parliament.

dow of opportunity for those affected to contact their local MPs to lobby and make noises in Parliament on their behalf.

Does it mean we still have time to raise our concern????

[K2004]

I advise people to apply for ILR anyway before 3rd of April, even if you havnt finished the 4 year period, in this way you will get a refusal based on 4 years. and thats may help in the future !!! I am thinking loud here....as you may be able to go back after and say here we go i have finished the 4 years...

[tvt]

I am more and more convinced that these rules can be challenged (or at least delayed) through the courts for the following grounds:

1. Infringement of Legitimate Expactations.
2. Ultra Vires - by effecting substantial change to British Nationality law bypassing parliament authority. (by practically extending the residence requirement from 5 to 6 years).
3. Faulty or non-existent consultation.
4. Misleading details in material laid before parliament (like the statement that the change does not affect businesses when the HO admits it does).

[lemess]

there is a mutual agreement between immigrant and the UK country, if they were not needed desperatly then they will not be welcomed at the first place,

At the risk of further enhancing my burgeoning reputation as public enemy number one on this thread, I have to point out something.
The key issue is your interpretation of someone who has been issued a work permit as having been 'promised' settlement after a certain number of years. A different perspective is that the work permit is a permit to work in the UK for a defined employer for a certain number of years and that's it. I gave the US example earlier where a work permit gives you no right whatsoever to permanent residence. I think we just have to get used to the idea that going forward work permits are not going to be seen as fast track for settlement and long term immigrantion but as ways to fill temporary resourcing gaps in the economy. With the expansion of the EU and labour movement from the eastern european countries, I suspect this trend is going to increase as mhunjin points out.

I am more and more convinced that these rules can be challenged (or at least delayed) through the courts for the following grounds:

1. Infringement of Legitimate Expactations.
2. Ultra Vires - by effecting substantial change to British Nationality law bypassing parliament authority.
3. Faulty or non-existent consultation.
4. Misleading details in material laid before parliament (like the statement that the change does not affect businesses when the HO admits it does).

I agree. It is a question of determining how many people are affected, getting a strong and consistent message and working out a specific proposition to take to the HO. My personal feeling is that increasing the transitional period may be the most likely win.

[shoegazer]

sorry long post...

I advise people to apply for ILR anyway before 3rd of April, even if you havnt finished the 4 year period, in this way you will get a refusal based on 4 years. and thats may help in the future !!!

Nope. you will waste £350 plus jeopardize your ILR prospects even if you appeal or reapply.

I am more and more convinced that these rules can be challenged (or at least delayed) through the courts for the following grounds:

1. Infringement of Legitimate Expactations.
2. Ultra Vires - by effecting substantial change to British Nationality law bypassing parliament authority. (by practically extending the residence requirement from 5 to 6 years).
3. Faulty or non-existent consultation.
4. Misleading details in material laid before parliament (like the statement that the change does not affect businesses when the HO admits it does).

This is why I mentioned Gherson and other law firms earlier. Can we bring this to their attention at all?

Regarding #2, the residence requirements are effectively extended for all work-related paths to settlement. If this constitutes more than say 75% of all naturalization then I could see the argument there - again the Blair bureaucracy going beyond its reach to rewrite the rules.

Because you weren't forced to come to this country... you made your decision voluntarily keeping in mind your interests and benefits at that time.
Similarly, the govt makes/changes policy to suit their interest and the interest of the country... not for the interest of the non-setteld immigrants whose only purpose to come to this country is for their own benefit!... It's sad, but true.

I came to this country with the legitimate expectation of settlement and the benefits that come with it. I pay my taxes and NI, like any other citizen, in that expectation. In return the country gets my skills, experience and TIME, as an HSMP my skills are definition in demand and the price I chose to put on them was 4 years of loyal service and residence. The government are effectively penalizing 1 year from us (or put another way giving themselves an extra "free" year of our work) and this is the unfair bit.

Of course they have the "right" to do this, of course emigrating here is a privilege, no one is questioning that! Your argument basically that the interest of the government trumps our own, well, you made that decision by choosing not to protest against this extension. This is a free and market based society and if my needs are not met, then I should raise my voice.

I have the uncomfortable feeling that people say "you can't complain" when what they really mean is "you are not entitled to complain". As tax paying law abiding members of this society (what I meant by citizen, not the legal term), we are very much entitled.

I think we just have to get used to the idea that going forward work permits are not going to be seen as fast track for settlement and long term immigrantion but as ways to fill temporary resourcing gaps in the economy.

This doesn't match up with the spin being put on the "points based immigration" system where people with specialized skills are being encouraged to work in the UK expressly as a route to eventual settlement.

[timefactor]

Ok. shall we act together? we have got 2 firms listed by 2 members
shoegazer->Gherson
TVT->www.plsimon.co.uk (not sure he referred this solicitior in this thread or not)

[lemess]

I came to this country with the legitimate expectation of settlement and the benefits that come with it. I pay my taxes and NI, like any other citizen, in that expectation. In return the country gets my skills, experience and TIME, as an HSMP my skills are definition in demand and the price I chose to put on them was 4 years of loyal service and residence. The government are effectively penalizing 1 year from us (or put another way giving themselves an extra "free" year of our work) and this is the unfair bit.

it does appear unfair due to the unseemly haste it's being pushed through in but you're not being denied settlement as a result of these rules. All you're being asked to do in this case is to wait 12 months before applying like everyone else. The unfair bit to me is that you have not had enough time to prepare for this and it is being steamrollered through and some people on the cusp will be extremely inconvenienced. However, a asking a highly skilled immigrant ( who by definition is well able to support themselves economically) to wait an extra 12 months before applying and almost certainly getting ILR will probably not be viewed as an extreme on the spectrum of unfairness by many people. Even allowing for the 12 months the UK still has one of the easiest paths to settlement.

I have the uncomfortable feeling that people say "you can't complain" when what they really mean is "you are not entitled to complain". As tax paying law abiding members of this society (what I meant by citizen, not the legal term), I am very much entitled.

if you're referring to me I haven't questioned anyone's right to complain. My point is that presumably getting something changed and not just complaining is the end goal. Assuming that is the case, it just makes sense to take into account the realities of the situation and take a pragmatic approach to mobilising support. Just complaining without a clear alternative that can be negotiated will not serve any purpose because like it or not this is not going to be a major public issue.

[shoegazer]

Ok. shall we act together? we have got 2 firms listed by 2 members
shoegazer->Gherson
TVT->www.plsimon.co.uk (not sure he referred this solicitior in this thread or not)

If someone is willing to draft up a petition I will gladly put my name onto it. What we need is an immigration lawyer willing to invest time to analyze the situation and give guidance to make sure our petition/complaint/whatever is effective... preferably someone already familiar with these boards (hint, hint! )

[shoegazer]

]

I have the uncomfortable feeling that people say "you can't complain" when what they really mean is "you are not entitled to complain". As tax paying law abiding members of this society (what I meant by citizen, not the legal term), I am very much entitled.

if you're referring to me I haven't questioned anyone's right to complain. My point is that presumably getting something changed and not just complaining is the end goal. Assuming that is the case, it just makes sense to take into account the realities of the situation and take a pragmatic approach to mobilising support. Just complaining without a clear alternative that can be negotiated will not serve any purpose because like it or not this is not going to be a major public issue.

I wasn't referring to any poster in particular, and especially not to the well-reasoned arguments you've put forward so far. I think people jump in on both sides with emotion, which is not helpful, and the point was simply that even as migrants we do have rights.

[timefactor]

workpermit.com specialist solicitors are also fine

[tutu1005]

can somone take the lead in here and make a suggestions ? lets gather a list of who is interested in protesting first and then will think about the way to protest... I start the list with my name

1-K2004

[/quote]

Writing user id would not really help. Can all who are against this retropective effect add their email address please.

kavik (-->email address)
1-K2004 (-->email address)
chrisp_2502@yahoo.co.uk

Maybe if someone can maintain an excel sheet for this as eventually[/quote]

I have started excel now and will forward to those who are interested in protest retrospective effect. I have also opened another post and we only welcome those who against the rule to come in, no negative responses are welcomed.

[tutu1005]

new post name is " who are interested in protest against changes of 4-5". Please go there for those who are against retropective effect.

I have received a few emails, please continue to do so. Hope we could get a lot of people join in before this weekend.

[tutu1005]

Ok. shall we act together? we have got 2 firms listed by 2 members
shoegazer->Gherson
TVT->www.plsimon.co.uk (not sure he referred this solicitior in this thread or not)

Great. Let stick on ideas we had so far:

1, group people who would like to protest by anyway.
Action has been taken by tutu1005. I am setting up excel sheet and now Thread for those who would like to contribute their time, money for the actions. No negative responses are welcomed.

2, Using solicitor. TVT and Shoegazer have proposed 2, could anyone take lead on this? We should start to contact them and find out the fee details etc.

3, Write to Media. Thanks for those who have done so. Please could anyone feedback on this? I still have not found any news from big ones. We need to raise our voice ASAP. I believe there is time limitation for us to be able to change or modify the rules, as concerned by other member in this board.

4, Write to MP. Thanks for those who have done so. I will do so as well but just do not know if I have right on this. I am not from commonwealth country.

5, Protest in front of the HO and Parliament. Someone has suggested we should start from HO and finish at Parliament. I strongly agree with it and I believe if we notice media before we do so, we will get attention.

Could anyone take lead on each of these? We do need to do something. I believe we could achieve something. As immigrants in this country, we have been keeping silence for too long. How many positive reports on immigrants have you ever read? We need to raise our voice and it is the time.

Special thanks for those who are not immigrants but support us.

I will post this on this thread and also the new thread.