Government response to petition on retrospective changes

[ukswus]

Simply put, they confirmed that do not rule out making retrospective changes for those already living in the UK on highly skilled visas:

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.

We will give careful consideration to whether, and if so, how any changes should apply to those already here.

http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-respons ... cefortier1

[geriatrix]

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 notion of "legitimate expectation" that immigrants may wish to use legally to challenge the changes!

If people think such petitions can influence or change government's strategy on immigration, I think they are just naive! 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).

IMHO ....



regards

[ukswus]

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

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.

However, they should also realize that rather than imposing tough 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. Such people will either stay where they are, or move to more welcoming places. What will the government get in return? 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. I will survive and succeed either way.

[geriatrix]

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

[geriatrix]

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.

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!


regards

[geriatrix]

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.

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!

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

[confusedhsmp]

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.

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!

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

Your statement as a moderator is completely irresponsible.

[ukswus]

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.

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!

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?

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

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.

[ukswus]

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.

But successful and highly skilled persons continue to leave their country and careers behind ... and decide to work in the UK.

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.

[ukswus]

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

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.

Moreover, such people do not automatically get to extend their stay in the UK. If they want to do it, they will have to get a salary considerably higher than the local average, this time without being able to adjust their earnings by the conversion factor. Anybody who can do so in these times, without local passport and experience is definitely high skilled. If they cannot do it, this means they are not highly skilled, and this is the market test of their abilities. I very much prefer it this way, rather any possible arbitrary caps one has to pass through, say, lottery.

[geriatrix]

Coming to think of it, wondering how new changes can be termed retrospective when the following is clearly stated in the PBS forms:

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.

AIUI, the very reason for inclusion of such a statement is to eliminate any such liability or meaning.


regards

[*FC*]

I totally agree with Sush on the clause under which we (Tier 1) all signed.

However I guess the OP's point is about the moral aspects....

[ukswus]

Coming to think of it, wondering how new changes can be termed retrospective when the following is clearly stated in the PBS forms:

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.

AIUI, the very reason for inclusion of such a statement is to eliminate any such liability or meaning.


regards

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".

I think this clause at the end of the application would remove any ambiguity, and it would be much more honest if the Government acted this way. But then how can they expect to get all these visa fees? It would be a shame to lose them, right?

[geriatrix]

Well, honesty / morality and politics don't gel together at least in my view!

And you are absolutely right, that is 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 which explicitly conveys what is intended.

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

[ukswus]

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 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.

[geriatrix]

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.

A little insight on govt.'s intention(s) with regards to permanent cap. The findings would be interesting to note I guess.


regards

[Vitavi]

Well, whichever rules are going to be in place starting from April 2011, people would be making their informed decision when judging on their potential prospects in the UK. No doubt, the system would become more stringent and more complicated in the same time. However, those applying at that time should be expected to agree with those rules.

While it all could be true for those outside the UK, I don’t agree with the cap on extensions at all. People who are already in the UK came here based on their assessment of then current system and it would be extremely unfair to make them complying with the new rules. Transitional arrangements would not help as well because one would need at least 1.5 years to adjust to the new way of life. Someone would probably need at least 3-4 month to find a better paid job, then to work for 12 month and apply for extension or settlement.

I am currently on £40,000pa which is well above the criteria under which I applied for my Tier 1 G. But should the criteria for extensions change, I will need at least 1.5 years to be able to earn £50,000pa for example.

Also the ‘pool’ sounds drastic. If the HO or ECO doesn’t like someone’s profile, they can refuse their application based on personal feelings and there would be no legal opportunity to challenge such a decision in court. This is because the actual decision could read ‘Your application has been refused because we believe there are some better candidates out there’. If this becomes a law, then nobody would be able to challenge such a decision. I feel that US Green Card lottery is going to be even fairer than the ‘pool’ system in the UK.

[Saga]

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).

How can migrants participate in the consultation process?

[geriatrix]

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).

How can migrants participate in the consultation process?

Limits on non-EU economic migration (June to September 2010)


regards

[MJNair]

Isn't this survey meant for employers?

[ukswus]

Isn't this survey meant for employers?

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 and
source labour from the domestic market? Please give details below."

I think the government doesn't give a damn about what immigrants think.

[MJNair]

I believe MAC consultation is going on currently.
Any clue when the recommendations will be announced?

[MJNair]

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..

[ukswus]

I believe MAC consultation is going on currently.
Any clue when the recommendations will be announced?

Look at page 17 of this document:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... sultation-
annual-limit?view=Binary

Looks like MAC consultation is by invitation only.

Their recommendations will be announced at the end of September, I think.

[ukswus]

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..

I don't think so... Unless you are ready to invest time into a new petition...