Good!timefactor wrote:My parish priest agreed to display a notice in church regarding recent changes in immigration rules.
- 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
According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules Laid on 30 March 2006 (HC 1016): (http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en ... dum10.html), no RIA was prepared at all. It was said that “A Regulatory Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules as it has no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”.likewise wrote:There is a list of departmental rias http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulat ... /index.asptarzan wrote:if we can prove that they breached their own code of conduct in this, it can be a life saver, showing they have not consulted, or considered the likely effects of this change at all. how did you discover, how can we prove this?
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulat ... /index.asp
also, it is better if we gather the answers from home office somewhere.
the contradictions will work for us, i hope they keep sending different mails, one saying there is not any retrospectiveness, one saying there is but not very significant, one saying UK never passes retrospective rules, etc.
we can use BTDC website if you like, or we exchange HO letters via email, or here.
-------------------------------
nonothing wrote:now, we've got two important points.
1. Hidden Dragon discovered the way the HO deliberately ignore the Impact Assessment breached the RIA (Regulatory Impact Assessment) rules.
2. aj77 unveiled some embarrassing contradictions in the HO officers' emails.“A final RIA must be laid in the House alongside legislation and published on your department's website whether or not there will be legislation. You will not secure collective ministerial agreement to proceed without an adequate RIA.”
i'm just wondering how we can use those two good points. how can they be used by Christine Lee's Team and BTCD? shall we integrate those points in our email to MPs?
any thoughts?
can't find anything to do with this change, but does that mean they breached it? or does it really matter to breach it?
Hidden dragon wrote:According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules Laid on 30 March 2006 (HC 1016): (http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en ... dum10.html), no RIA was prepared at all. It was said that “A Regulatory Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules as it has no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”.likewise wrote:There is a list of departmental rias http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulat ... /index.asptarzan wrote:if we can prove that they breached their own code of conduct in this, it can be a life saver, showing they have not consulted, or considered the likely effects of this change at all. how did you discover, how can we prove this?
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulat ... /index.asp
also, it is better if we gather the answers from home office somewhere.
the contradictions will work for us, i hope they keep sending different mails, one saying there is not any retrospectiveness, one saying there is but not very significant, one saying UK never passes retrospective rules, etc.
we can use BTDC website if you like, or we exchange HO letters via email, or here.
-------------------------------
nonothing wrote:now, we've got two important points.
1. Hidden Dragon discovered the way the HO deliberately ignore the Impact Assessment breached the RIA (Regulatory Impact Assessment) rules.
2. aj77 unveiled some embarrassing contradictions in the HO officers' emails.
i'm just wondering how we can use those two good points. how can they be used by Christine Lee's Team and BTCD? shall we integrate those points in our email to MPs?
any thoughts?
can't find anything to do with this change, but does that mean they breached it? or does it really matter to breach it?
Clearly the "no impact" bit is rubbish. It definitely has impacts to businesses because:
(1) Employers will have to pay for new work permits;
(2) HSMP holders will not have PR status as planned, which could affect their business development such as to secure a loan or attract private investment.
(3) WP holders will not be able to set up their own business and create more jobs.
More importantly, it means all WP, HSMP holders will have to wait for one more year to VOTE in the general election! (Previous 5 year for citizenship while now 6)
Without the right to VOTE, you basically have no say in the democratic system, then how can you conduct your business as usual (or as planned?), and how can the charity or voluntary body that you are in not affected?
I wonder on what ground, can Home Office's rule be allowed to change tens of thousands of people's legitimate right to VOTE! It is something quite fundamental, for me at least!
The two immigration rule changes mean lots of people were deprived the right to VOTE in the forthcoming general election!
In this case shall we contact the cabinet office about this issue? sorry but i have no idea what they actually doHidden dragon wrote: According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules Laid on 30 March 2006 (HC 1016): (http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en ... dum10.html), no RIA was prepared at all. It was said that “A Regulatory Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules as it has no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”.
Clearly the "no impact" bit is rubbish. It definitely has impacts to businesses because:
(1) Employers will have to pay for new work permits;
(2) HSMP holders will not have PR status as planned, which could affect their business development such as to secure a loan or attract private investment.
(3) WP holders will not be able to set up their own business and create more jobs.
More importantly, it means all WP, HSMP holders will have to wait for one more year to VOTE in the general election! (Previous 5 year for citizenship while now 6)
Without the right to VOTE, you basically have no say in the democratic system, then how can you conduct your business as usual (or as planned?), and how can the charity or voluntary body that you are in not affected?
I wonder on what ground, can Home Office's rule be allowed to change tens of thousands of people's legitimate right to VOTE! It is something quite fundamental, for me at least!
The two immigration rule changes mean lots of people were deprived the right to VOTE in the forthcoming general election!
I guess they plan to attract more voters now then they may lose in the future to be net better off.tvt wrote:Sooner or later all the people affected by this change will gain the right to vote in this country.
I guess all the hundreds of thousands of people affected will remember which political party was behind the change when they cast their votes.
I really don't understand why the Labour party is so willing to alienate so many voters and potential voters for no good reason.
if you remember the key issue in the last general election was immigration and you can't really compare the votes of a few thousand immigrants with the votes of the citizens of this country...tvt wrote:Sooner or later all the people affected by this change will gain the right to vote in this country.
I guess all the hundreds of thousands of people affected will remember which political party was behind the change when they cast their votes.
I really don't understand why the Labour party is so willing to alienate so many voters and potential voters for no good reason.
The above statement will not make any difference to any political party.tvt wrote: I guess all the hundreds of thousands of people affected will remember which political party was behind the change when they cast their votes.
The citizens if this country may object immigration but when they actually come to vote it's not a main issue for them as was evidenced in the last elections when the Tories raised this issue high and at the end minimised the exposure of this issue in their campaign as it didn't attract many voters. In contrast there are hundreds of thousands of immigrants affected and for them it's a major issue. In the UK election system the marginal votes are the most important ones as they can decide whether the constituency will be a Labour / Tory or Lib Dem one. Immigrants were traditional Labour voters and as employment based migrants are more educated they tend to vote more than the average population. A swing of these votes can have a significant effect.olisun wrote: if you remember the key issue in the last general election was immigration and you can't really compare the votes of a few thousand immigrants with the votes of the citizens of this country...
Do you think the citizens of this country will support WP / HSMP candidates who according to them are a threat to their livelyhood?
Any political party will try to balance between immigrants and their impact on the votebank.
The opposition parties will never challenge the immigration bill as it was them who created the issue in the last general election.
Labour may be less hard on immigration but their treatment of immigration is far more inconsistent than the Tories one. Just count how many Immigration Acts Labour have introduced since they came to power. This inconsistency is a greater threat to migrants as they cannot plan their lives.olisun wrote: The above statement will not make any difference to any political party.
One has to thank the Labour for being less hard on immigrants.. will you vote for Tories or BNP who were planning to stop immigration alltogether?
well said. it's absolutely right. should i get the right of vote, i'd never vote for the labour party. never! and i'll get the right of vote one day, that's 100% for sure.tvt wrote:In the UK election system the marginal votes are the most important ones as they can decide whether the constituency will be a Labour / Tory or Lib Dem one. Immigrants were traditional Labour voters and as employment based migrants are more educated they tend to vote more than the average population. A swing of these votes can have a significant effect.
Labour may be less hard on immigration but their treatment of immigration is far more inconsistent than the Tories one. Just count how many Immigration Acts Labour have introduced since they came to power. This inconsistency is a greater threat to migrants as they cannot plan their lives.
Not necessarily. Abromavich (Chelsea Owner) hasnt got ILR; Alfayeed (Harrods) - does not own a British ppt..People don't invest money where he has no surity of staying. I don't think people buy house before getting ILR. Also, they can re-shape their lives by enrolling in some courses (which is not otherwise possible because of high fees).
Yes. But it doesnt change life drasticallyMoreover, it gives a mental confidence.
Agree; but if you are very highly competent - changing jobs should be no big deal. also you could get HSMP - it avoids such problems..For WP holders, it is more relevant. Many companies just refuse to read CVs just because they won't sponsor WP. Getting ILR opens at least 10 times job opportunity.
Not necessarilyILR gives unrestricted and multiple options..... that's why everyone wants it.
I agreeSo, we should continue our effort to override the "retrospective" part of the rule!
absolutelyChess wrote:Getting PR does change life of people (at least WP holders) to a great extent....
Not necessarily. Abromavich (Chelsea Owner) hasnt got ILR; Alfayeed (Harrods) - does not own a British ppt..People don't invest money where he has no surity of staying. I don't think people buy house before getting ILR. Also, they can re-shape their lives by enrolling in some courses (which is not otherwise possible because of high fees).
true but they have plenty of money they are not investing their life-time savings here are they..?. while people like us, we have to be really careful with our investments cus it's our life-time savings you get it wrong and you end up with a financial crisis.
There are many house holders out there on Limited Leave to Remain - also there are also 'illegals' with property..
Yes. But it doesnt change life drasticallyMoreover, it gives a mental confidence.
yes it does. you have to worry about it every bloody day.. it makes you stressed, and it halts your life because let's face it you can not plan for your future(pensions, insurance, investments).
Agree; but if you are very highly competent - changing jobs should be no big deal. also you could get HSMP - it avoids such problems..For WP holders, it is more relevant. Many companies just refuse to read CVs just because they won't sponsor WP. Getting ILR opens at least 10 times job opportunity.
i don't agree i had to change jobs and it was a pain in the arse. and getting HSMP it's not that easy on my profession.(catering)
Not necessarilyILR gives unrestricted and multiple options..... that's why everyone wants it.
all the people i know wants it and i know there are people out there that even pay thousands of pounds for it.
I agreeSo, we should continue our effort to override the "retrospective" part of the rule!
Citizens of Commonwealth countries can still vote in the UKtvt wrote:Sooner or later all the people affected by this change will gain the right to vote in this country.
I guess all the hundreds of thousands of people affected will remember which political party was behind the change when they cast their votes.
I really don't understand why the Labour party is so willing to alienate so many voters and potential voters for no good reason.