5 years for ILR rule implemented

[Hidden dragon]

My parish priest agreed to display a notice in church regarding recent changes in immigration rules.

Good!

[Hidden dragon]

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.

-------------------------------

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.

“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.”

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?

There is a list of departmental rias http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulat ... /index.asp
can't find anything to do with this change, but does that mean they breached it? or does it really matter to breach it?

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!

[morerightsformigrants]

i agree actually we should raise this issue as well " the vote thingy" could be a good strong point.

and regarding home students fees i think it is a very strong point for all the affected people. for example a friend of mine who's on work permit who would had qualified on december has paid 18,000 POUNDS this year on fees for his oldest son, who is on his first year at university which is ok because he knew that when he made his decision to come here. but next year his youngest son is going to uni too which means that he will have to pay 36,000 pounds instead of 6,000 pounds that he originary thought he will pay next year. my point is this is an unplanned expense how on earth is he going to get that money in such a short period of time i think he wouldn't have come here if he knew that he will be paying that amount of money for his sons education.

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.

-------------------------------

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?

There is a list of departmental rias http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulat ... /index.asp
can't find anything to do with this change, but does that mean they breached it? or does it really matter to breach it?

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!

[likewise]

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!

In this case shall we contact the cabinet office about this issue? sorry but i have no idea what they actually do

[tvt]

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.

[sowhat]

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.

I guess they plan to attract more voters now then they may lose in the future to be net better off.

[olisun]

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...

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.

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 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?

[Fed up]

All who have contributed to this string,
First off, I apologise that I have not read each and every response going back to the beginning. I am new to this and am tryinig to find out what significant action / steps can be taken to get this change in immigration repealed. All comments are interesting but action is what we need.

Like most of you, my wife and I have been living, working and paying taxes in the UK for many years as non-EU/UK passport holders. Not being familiar with the workpermit law, we both got our own work permits not knowing that one cancels out the other. Needless to say, this messed up chances to apply for ILR after 4 years. We have spent 6 years in the UK waiting to qualify for ILR next Feb. and now find out that our qualification will not happen to 2008! Has anyone been sucessful going to a lawyer to fight their case? Is there any hope this law will be changed?

I am really fed up.

Fed up.

[rg1]

I have raised this issue to Parliamentary Ombudsman for their intervention.

Also wrote emails to the editors of several newspapers!

We must get media attention. Still the authority is not considering as a problem.

[tvt]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[nonothing]

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.

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.

when they needed the doctors and nurses, they brought them in. when they don't need them any more, they just simply kick them off citing "their own countries need them more"! actually their countries always need them more, whatever now or then!

[ansaggart]

Guys,

I thiunk we are diverting a bit. Let's leave the votes for the next election and now concentrate on the real issue on how we can revert this retrospective change.

A

[tvt]

I think the votes issue is important for this discussion. At the end of the day what matters to politicians is to get re-elected.

[a11]

I think a relevant conclusion one can make from the above discussion is that despite the fact that overseas employees are offended by the rules' change, the majority of them are going to stay in the country anyway and eventually apply for ILRs and naturalisation.
Now, this can be used both as an argument for and against the 'retrospective' implementation of the changes. The supporting argument is that since most people are staying anyway, their lives are indeed not really affected.
The argument against the change (i.e., having a certain percentage of population who will remain in the country anyway, but now will be angry with it) has been discussed above.
To be honest, I am not sure which of the two arguments is more convincing. Therefore, I would be careful with using it in debates with the officials.

[a11]

Two more LibDem MP's have signed EDM 1992: Paul Holmes and Sandra Gidley.

In the meantime, the commonwealth doctors EDM has already attracted 18 signatures.

[Chess]

Guys;

whichever way you look at it - you will all get your British passports before this Decade is over...

I can however assure you - it wont change your life drastically...

You will still have to work ; put food on your table; drive your Toyota; attend the Mela and carry on eating curry's.... etc. ......

No major change really except perharps you may decide to galavant through Europe - but pthe money may be best spent doing something 'more' worthwhile...

so please - cheer up

[Fed up]

Chess,

What kind of passport do you hold?

[Chess]

Chess,

What kind of passport do you hold?

Non-UK/EEA ppt

[Fed up]

I guess you are more optimistic than me.

[rg1]

Getting PR does change life of people (at least WP holders) to a great extent....

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).

Moreover, it gives a mental confidence.

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.

ILR gives unrestricted and multiple options..... that's why everyone wants it.

So, we should continue our effort to override the "retrospective" part of the rule!

[Chess]

Getting PR does change life of people (at least WP holders) to a great extent....

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).

Not necessarily. Abromavich (Chelsea Owner) hasnt got ILR; Alfayeed (Harrods) - does not own a British ppt..

There are many house holders out there on Limited Leave to Remain - also there are also 'illegals' with property..

Moreover, it gives a mental confidence.

Yes. But it doesnt change life drastically

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.

Agree; but if you are very highly competent - changing jobs should be no big deal. also you could get HSMP - it avoids such problems..

ILR gives unrestricted and multiple options..... that's why everyone wants it.

Not necessarily

So, we should continue our effort to override the "retrospective" part of the rule!

I agree

[morerightsformigrants]

Getting PR does change life of people (at least WP holders) to a great extent....

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).

Not necessarily. Abromavich (Chelsea Owner) hasnt got ILR; Alfayeed (Harrods) - does not own a British ppt..

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..

Moreover, it gives a mental confidence.

Yes. But it doesnt change life drastically

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).

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.

Agree; but if you are very highly competent - changing jobs should be no big deal. also you could get HSMP - it avoids such problems..

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)

ILR gives unrestricted and multiple options..... that's why everyone wants it.

Not necessarily

all the people i know wants it and i know there are people out there that even pay thousands of pounds for it.

So, we should continue our effort to override the "retrospective" part of the rule!

I agree

absolutely

[moni69]

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.

Citizens of Commonwealth countries can still vote in the UK

[freedom83]

Hello Everyone!
I just come across this discussion board and wonder if someone could help me.
I am an EU member, my boyfriend is from Cameroon. We have lived together for 3 years now and plan to spend our lives together. He is subject He happens to be an overstayer and is subject to immigration control.He has to sign up at the Immigration Enforcement Unit every month under the Home Office provisions.

I understand we qualify to apply for a leave to remain in the UK as unmarried partners.However , we have not put in an application to the Home Office.We plan to do so in the next few days.I was wondering if you could enlighten us on the probable answer we await after our application.What is the likely outcome of our application? Is there any advice on going about with this?

Ideally , we really should have married last year if the new Law about a Certificate of approval had not been implemented. I understand an overstayer / or anyone subject to immigration control has no chance of getting a certificate of approval.
What is the present situation after the recent ruling by Justice Silber ? Can we approach our Local registrar and announce our intention to get married without a COA? Are we still supposed to apply for a COA from the Home Office? What is the impact of this ruling and how does it affect our chances?
Here , http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4894544.stm is an info about "sham marriages " revealed by Justice Silban
, but i have no idea if something has been changed at all...

Your advice would be highly appreciated.The law is really frustrating our course and we still have managed to stick together.It is making us stronger everyday. I am presently employed on a full time basis and paying taxes as a full citizen.My partner is a qualified Revenue,Sales and Marketing Consultant and is not able to work.It is a big waste and loss to the UK work force.We are not on public funds and is in no way a burden to the government.

Here ,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4894544.stm is an info about "sham marriages " revealed by Justice Silban
, but i have no idea if something has been changed at all...

I feel so helpless and live in fear that the love of my life may be deported ( almost happened twice but luckly was released on bail ...)
I just simply cannot live like that any more.
If anybody can help and would give me an advice what to do, i would really appreciate.
Best Regards,
Angelina

[timefactor]

At least for WP holders ILR is very important. 2 years back i was forced for a job change. I got return calls for most of the jobs i applied, all consultants praised my CV, but got interview/test call only for 30%.

On one occasion, with a bluechip i got thru all stage but finally they refused based on the fact that they have to sponser my WP. Finally i've got an employer where my secondary skills matched (funny though ).

Also i'm really gutted due to this change. From personal prespective i'm settled in this country in every aspects other than security of permenant residency. You guys know how much stressful every day for me , feeling not secure here.