- 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
timefactor wrote: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.
We should also think with the consultation of doctors about writing to Parliament Ombudsman seriously.It will be much esier for us after joing with Overseas Doctors.Doctors also have the support of organisation from Indian Community which has more than 25000 members.Once Chineese community which is leading our campaign joins Indians community,surely our success chances would increaseWe should also write to Parliamentary Ombudsman. They can often overrule parliament.
they breached their own code of conductA 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.”
To Mr/Mrs/Ms First Name Surename,sowhat wrote:I want to send another letter to my MP and I am wondering, how people usually address an MP: Dear Mr. X, or Dear Sir or something else. It does not really matter but I wonder if there is any convention?
Also which EDM should we ask them to sign: 1992 or 1912?
Agree!aj77 wrote:I mean we should achieve this target with some plan not only requesting on the board,
We should also consult with doctors for future strategy to achieve the common goal
come on guys, it's time for action!Hidden dragon wrote:There is a Action Plan and an Overall Strategy (see below). What we need is people, at least 12. We have got about 3 people who are doing their job according to the plan (nonothing is collecting MPs replies, rooi_ding is contacting Tory and Lib Dem leaders and media people, and I am trying to create the words for the poster). The progress is very slowly though....
I need half-an-hour from veryone of you. Please help! We must go on!
By the way, I guess you all enjoyed today's news headlines. I think C Clarke is falling. We should plan for the post-Clarke period, when there might be new opportunities.
rg1 wrote:I got this reply from MP
==================
Dear ####
Thank you for contacting me regarding the changes to immigration rules
(House of Commons Paper 974, replaced by HC1016) including changes to
the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR).
I am concerned that this situation is unfair to those already in this
country who have made plans on the reasonable assumption that the
qualifying period would not change, and unnecessarily prejudices those
skilled immigrants who contribute significantly to this country and its
economy. We feel that the Home Office has not given sufficient notice
of these changes and that if they were justified; they should apply
only to those entering the country now, and not retrospectively.
To this end we have laid a motion against these changes which we hope
to debate in committee before the deadline as stipulated by parliamentary
procedure (we anticipate this will be in the next month).
I will write to you again when the outcome of the committee is known.
Thank you for raising this vital issue with me.
Yours sincerely
sent on behalf of Nick Clegg MP
==================
the meeting mentioned here, is it tonight conference at SOHO Outreach Centre?morerightsformigrants wrote:got this from another forum interesting:
Lord DHOLAKIA has now agreed to be the spoke person for the campaign in the House of Lord. He is the Deputy Leader for Liberal Democrats and their Spokesperson for Home Affairs. He will tries to rally support for the campaign in the House of Lord.
http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?l ... y&id=26795
Also
Andrew Dismore MP has agreed to be the spokeperson for the campaign in the House of Common. He is the Labour MP in Hendon and the Chair of the Chinese in Britain All Party Parliamentary Group.
http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/A ... 2247AC.htm
He will try to raise the issue in the common, but will need a new petition for it. Christine will now draft a new form so Mr Dismore can get the issue raised in the common. The new petition will also be presented to HO. He will attend the meeting tonight and explain how the campaign can support his action.
And
Dr John May, a consultant for the metropolitan police will also attend the meeting to explain how the Chinese Community can raise the profile and get into the mainstream society through community participation and politics.
Dr John May
--------------------
Spectrum Radio Cantonese Programme broadcast daily between 6-7pm on 558AM and online http://558.net
If you have any suggestions for our programmes, please email me on joseph.DJ@558.net 遊說政府行動參考文件檔
let's keep it up guys
rg1 wrote:I got this reply from MP
==================
Dear ####
Thank you for contacting me regarding the changes to immigration rules
(House of Commons Paper 974, replaced by HC1016) including changes to
the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR).
I am concerned that this situation is unfair to those already in this
country who have made plans on the reasonable assumption that the
qualifying period would not change, and unnecessarily prejudices those
skilled immigrants who contribute significantly to this country and its
economy. We feel that the Home Office has not given sufficient notice
of these changes and that if they were justified; they should apply
only to those entering the country now, and not retrospectively.
To this end we have laid a motion against these changes which we hope
to debate in committee before the deadline as stipulated by parliamentary
procedure (we anticipate this will be in the next month).
I will write to you again when the outcome of the committee is known.
Thank you for raising this vital issue with me.
Yours sincerely
sent on behalf of Nick Clegg MP
==================
sowhat wrote:the meeting mentioned here, is it tonight conference at SOHO Outreach Centre?morerightsformigrants wrote:got this from another forum interesting:
Lord DHOLAKIA has now agreed to be the spoke person for the campaign in the House of Lord. He is the Deputy Leader for Liberal Democrats and their Spokesperson for Home Affairs. He will tries to rally support for the campaign in the House of Lord.
http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?l ... y&id=26795
Also
Andrew Dismore MP has agreed to be the spokeperson for the campaign in the House of Common. He is the Labour MP in Hendon and the Chair of the Chinese in Britain All Party Parliamentary Group.
http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/A ... 2247AC.htm
He will try to raise the issue in the common, but will need a new petition for it. Christine will now draft a new form so Mr Dismore can get the issue raised in the common. The new petition will also be presented to HO. He will attend the meeting tonight and explain how the campaign can support his action.
And
Dr John May, a consultant for the metropolitan police will also attend the meeting to explain how the Chinese Community can raise the profile and get into the mainstream society through community participation and politics.
Dr John May
--------------------
Spectrum Radio Cantonese Programme broadcast daily between 6-7pm on 558AM and online http://558.net
If you have any suggestions for our programmes, please email me on joseph.DJ@558.net 遊說政府行動參考文件檔
let's keep it up guys
rg1 wrote:I got this reply from MP
==================
Dear ####
Thank you for contacting me regarding the changes to immigration rules
(House of Commons Paper 974, replaced by HC1016) including changes to
the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR).
I am concerned that this situation is unfair to those already in this
country who have made plans on the reasonable assumption that the
qualifying period would not change, and unnecessarily prejudices those
skilled immigrants who contribute significantly to this country and its
economy. We feel that the Home Office has not given sufficient notice
of these changes and that if they were justified; they should apply
only to those entering the country now, and not retrospectively.
To this end we have laid a motion against these changes which we hope
to debate in committee before the deadline as stipulated by parliamentary
procedure (we anticipate this will be in the next month).
I will write to you again when the outcome of the committee is known.
Thank you for raising this vital issue with me.
Yours sincerely
sent on behalf of Nick Clegg MP
==================
mahin1110 wrote:Hi!
I want to make a point regarding retrospective effect of new rules. You already know that when Home Office issued HSMP approval letter during 1st extension they mentioned that we would be qualified for ILR after 3 years ( 1+3= total 4 years). My point is: is this not a written commitment? Can we show those written commitments made by HO to individuals during Ms Lee's proposed meeting with minister or in Court (if required)? Quoting the letter we can clearly demonstrate that the new rules gives retrospective effect for ILR. However, it seems to me that Home Office can not make their case during Court battle, although this is not our current strategy.
Thanks
cantab wrote:mahin1110 wrote:Hi!
I want to make a point regarding retrospective effect of new rules. You already know that when Home Office issued HSMP approval letter during 1st extension they mentioned that we would be qualified for ILR after 3 years ( 1+3= total 4 years). My point is: is this not a written commitment? Can we show those written commitments made by HO to individuals during Ms Lee's proposed meeting with minister or in Court (if required)? Quoting the letter we can clearly demonstrate that the new rules gives retrospective effect for ILR. However, it seems to me that Home Office can not make their case during Court battle, although this is not our current strategy.
Thanks
I think the most effective challenge to retrospective application will come from a court case, if the proposals are not thrown out of the commons. with a system based on precedent, there is no way retrospective application of any legislation will be upheld in court. but someone needs to challenge this. with no challenge there is no case. i have 1.5 years till my 4 years are filled.
my lawyer mentioned that it can cost tens thousand pounds...tobiashomer wrote:The HO do not see such letters as binding; I wrote the official who signed mine asking if it would be honoured, and got a form response that the rules had changed. Besides working the MPs, a court case might indeed be the best or only way forward. Has anyone got legal advice about how to take this to court? Perhaps by applying for ILR after 4 years' residence and protesting the rejection? who would be the guinea pig for that one?!
cantab wrote:mahin1110 wrote:Hi!
I want to make a point regarding retrospective effect of new rules. You already know that when Home Office issued HSMP approval letter during 1st extension they mentioned that we would be qualified for ILR after 3 years ( 1+3= total 4 years). My point is: is this not a written commitment? Can we show those written commitments made by HO to individuals during Ms Lee's proposed meeting with minister or in Court (if required)? Quoting the letter we can clearly demonstrate that the new rules gives retrospective effect for ILR. However, it seems to me that Home Office can not make their case during Court battle, although this is not our current strategy.
Thanks
I think the most effective challenge to retrospective application will come from a court case, if the proposals are not thrown out of the commons. with a system based on precedent, there is no way retrospective application of any legislation will be upheld in court. but someone needs to challenge this. with no challenge there is no case. i have 1.5 years till my 4 years are filled.