- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
Who says that they are missing this? I don't. Of course, the Government has every legal right to impose whatever they want on existing migrants, especially if they do not care about the morality of such moves.sushdmehta wrote:Simply put - Govt. may (continue to) do what they wish to do and their legal brains believe is legal to do! Any migrant (or group of migrants) not in agreement with changes to immigration policy may then decide to challenge the changes legally, provided he/they can cough up the exorbitant amount of money that may be required to do so.
Why does everyone miss noticing the caveat in the PBS application form(s) - I am aware that the rules and regulations governing points based system applications may change in the future and do not assume that the requirements covering any future applications will be the same - that they sign to accept. Hard to accept, but no much one can do about it without loads of money and time consuming legal battles ... not forgetting that accepting such terms and conditions practically erases any "legitimate expectation" that immigrants may wish to use legally to challenge the changes!
IMHO ....
regards
But successful and highly skilled persons continue to leave their country and careers behind ... and decide to work in the UK. Citizenship in the UK is not necessarily the only (or key) parameter individuals use to define success in their career path. This is a parameter used by people emigrating for the purpose of settlement outside their home country and such an ambition, too, is not parameter to measure whether one is highly skilled or not. Highly skilled worker immigration category is merely a route to achieve that ambition - of citizenship of another country!ukswus wrote: retrospective changes on exiting migrants, they might as well close the shop altogether, because no really successful, highly skilled person will leave their home and careers behind, knowing that they cannot reasonably expect to settle in this country.
No offence but don't think you would have made such a statement for the govt. of your own country had you been resident there and not appreciative of the (perceived) liberal immigration policy of your own govt. Only fear and uncertainty gives rise to such thoughts and irresponsible statements!ukswus wrote: Appeasement of low-skilled voters, who will not gain a dime from the high-skilled migrants leaving in droves (or not arriving in the first place)? It's their call of course.
Your statement as a moderator is completely irresponsible.sushdmehta wrote:No offence but don't think you would have made such a statement for the govt. of your own country had you been resident there and not appreciative of the (perceived) liberal immigration policy of your own govt. Only fear and uncertainty gives rise to such thoughts and irresponsible statements!ukswus wrote: Appeasement of low-skilled voters, who will not gain a dime from the high-skilled migrants leaving in droves (or not arriving in the first place)? It's their call of course.
Were people equally concerned about the morality of govt. decisions in their home country (on various political issues) as they are in the UK about morality of UK govt. regarding immigration issues? I wonder ...
Do immigrants have more right to influence immigration policy than the citizens of the country? Govt. exists because of the citizens ... and that's the audience they must appease to stay in power! Another fact of life!
IMHO ...
regards
I am sorry, I don't get it. What was so irresponsible about what I wrote above? Is it not true that it is the lowest-skilled locals who complain the most about immigration? And that skilled immigrants very rarely compete for jobs with them? And if this is the case, then how will making life even harder for existing high-skilled immigrants help anybody?sushdmehta wrote:No offence but don't think you would have made such a statement for the govt. of your own country had you been resident there and not appreciative of the (perceived) liberal immigration policy of your own govt. Only fear and uncertainty gives rise to such thoughts and irresponsible statements!ukswus wrote: Appeasement of low-skilled voters, who will not gain a dime from the high-skilled migrants leaving in droves (or not arriving in the first place)? It's their call of course.
That's the populist approach to policy making. Not based on evidence about costs and benefits to the people and the economy of pushing high-skilled immigrants out, but based on populist perceptions about the need to control immigration. Incidentally, it was the Conservatives who instigated such perceptions, because they needed to differentiate themselves from "failed policies of Labour", without giving due regard about whether caps on skilled immigration really make sense or not.sushdmehta wrote: Were people equally concerned about the morality of govt. decisions in their home country (on various political issues) as they are in the UK about morality of UK govt. regarding immigration issues? I wonder ...
Do immigrants have more right to influence immigration policy than the citizens of the country? Govt. exists because of the citizens ... and that's the audience they must appease to stay in power! Another fact of life!
IMHO ...
regards
They do now, because there was no real precedent in the past when the retrospective changes prevented a significant number of people from extending their stay in the UK, or gain settlement (assuming they played by the rules). Wait and see what happens if they cap settlement and extensions. There will be no real advantage of staying here compared to, say, USA.sushdmehta wrote:But successful and highly skilled persons continue to leave their country and careers behind ... and decide to work in the UK.ukswus wrote: retrospective changes on exiting migrants, they might as well close the shop altogether, because no really successful, highly skilled person will leave their home and careers behind, knowing that they cannot reasonably expect to settle in this country.
regards
Does it make a difference how and who defines the term HSM? The issue is pretty straightforward, IMO. In order to qualify for Tier 1 visa, one has to be well-educated AND earn quite a lot of money. If they are not very well educated, they have to make PLENTY of money. Such people are successful by default. That's the criteria chosen by the HO, and I don't have any significant complaints about it.sushdmehta wrote:Who defines what is "highly skilled" when it comes to employability and earnings? Is it you or me or someone who is adversely affected by such changes and fear having to return home as a result or the industry where organisations even today are ready to pay huge sums of money to get the appropriate candidates for the job .. from any corner in this world. Why don't these organisations just pick up one of the "highly skilled" migrants resident in the UK and save themselves some good chunk of money in these hard times.
Do appreciate that possession of a "highly skilled worker" immigration status is no reflection of the intelligence or skills / expertise of the individual and/or their employability. Had that been the case, every "highly skilled worker" would be minting money .... not just in UK but anywhere in the world .... and organisations would leave no stone unturned to get such individuals on their rolls.
One needs to be practical when thinking on such issues and be absolutely brutal in self-evaluation. And no matter how much one cribs about it, no govt. of any country will stop from making changes that they believe are in the interest of the "citizens" of that country. Call it vote bank politics or whatever you like, but that's how the world works ... even in your own home country just as in mine!
regards
AIUI, the very reason for inclusion of such a statement is to eliminate any such liability or meaning.I am aware that the rules and regulations governing points based system applications may change in the future and do not assume that the requirements covering any future applications will be the same.
In other words: "Dear applicant. Feel free to pay 2500 pounds for a family of 3, sell your property at home, leave your career behind, and come here with no expectations whatsoever. You cannot plan anything in order to extend your visa, because we may change our rules at will at the last minute. As before, please pay all your taxes and do not expect any benefits. You don't even deserve NHS treatment which we want to remove from you, even though you pay for it. You are not welcome here, and therefore your best bet is to plan to return home as soon as possible".sushdmehta wrote:Coming to think of it, wondering how new changes can be termed retrospective when the following is clearly stated in the PBS forms:AIUI, the very reason for inclusion of such a statement is to eliminate any such liability or meaning.I am aware that the rules and regulations governing points based system applications may change in the future and do not assume that the requirements covering any future applications will be the same.
regards
A small correction- I am arguing on both moral and practical grounds, although it also depends on what one means by "practical". If it implies choosing policies that bring in short-term political gains based on populist voting, then yes, you are right, the Government is being practical. If the goal is the interests of the country as a whole, then no, I don't think there is anything practical about pushing out skilled migrants, who give much more than take from this country.sushdmehta wrote:Well, honesty / morality and politics don't gel together! And you are right, that is exactly the essence of the statement in question - but politics dictates that it not be written in the manner you suggest. IMHO, the ambiguity is in the mind not in the statement.
I guess we are in disagreement on the issue because, as *FC* appropriately mentioned, you are arguing the case on moral grounds and I, on the other hand, from a practical, political (and perhaps legal) point of view.
regards
A little insight on govt.'s intention(s) with regards to permanent cap. The findings would be interesting to note I guess.The Home Affairs Committee is today publishing terms of reference for its recently-announced inquiry into the cap on non-EU economic migration. The Committee will investigate the Government’s current proposals to cap migration through Tiers 1 and 2 of the points-based system by implementing a permanent limit.
In particular the inquiry will focus on:
The impact a cap on non-EU economic migration would have on the ability of UK business and industries to recruit the skills and staff they require;
The numbers of skilled and non-skilled migrants likely to be affected by a cap on Tiers 1 and 2;
The impact and effectiveness of a ‘first come, first served’ or a pool system for highly skilled migrants under Tier 1; and of a ‘first come, first served’, a pool, or an auction, system for skilled migrants under Tier 2;
Whether and how intra-company transfers should be included in a cap;
The implications of merging the Resident Labour Market Test and Shortage Occupation Lists;
Whether dependents should be included in the cap, and the effect of including them.
Limits on non-EU economic migration (June to September 2010)Saga wrote:How can migrants participate in the consultation process?If one wants to put their point of view across, participate actively in the consultation .. that's what government and government appointed bodies deciding on such matters will take into consideration (if they do, that is).
I think it is. If one reads the response form, there are quite a few business-specific questions, like "If a supply of migrant workers is no longer readily available, what action will you take to train andMJNair wrote:Isn't this survey meant for employers?
Look at page 17 of this document:MJNair wrote:I believe MAC consultation is going on currently.
Any clue when the recommendations will be announced?
I don't think so... Unless you are ready to invest time into a new petition...MJNair wrote:Is it possible to send the government a response to their response?
We are mindful of the impacts that changes to the immigration system can have on those who are already in the UK. Mitigating those impacts must be balanced against the need to ensure a robust system and the fact that we cannot keep old provisions in place indefinitely.
The petition was to request the government to not apply the changes to those already here.. there was no request to keep the old system in place indefinitely..