5 years for ILR rule implemented

[tobiashomer]

1. re funding a court case. I would be willing to contribute, say, £100, and I am sure there are at least a hundred out there who would.. and 100 X 100 gets us ten thousand. Hopefully there is a lawyer who would take an interest in the equity aspect and would not charge full commercial rates.

2. re hardhsips of "4-to-5" change. besides the (very real) difficulty in getting a mortgage (and thus putting into practice the "intention to make Britain our home" that is one of the prerequisites for HSMP; and the frustrating of our and our children's plans to undertake higher education without paying punitive "overseas" fees, the third aspect that cuts the cruelest with WP or HSMP holders with families, is:

if the visa holder should die prior to ILR, his dependants would have no right to stay in the country.
I queried this of the WPUK person who gave me the news that my HSMP extension letter with the "ILR in 3 more years" promise would not be honoured, and he said that their status would "likely be viewed with sympathy" by the HO. And he wished me a nice weekend.

So we cannot rely on written undertakings, but are expected to be comforted by the prospect of "sympathy": cold comfort indeed.

[Papafaith]

Tobias, good thinking, i also will donate £100.00 as contribution to legal fees in the event that we decide to pursue the legal aspect.

[ansaggart]

Guys,

I'll put £100 for this as well.

[aj77]

As right now we are following action plan 3 i.e EDM Approach and Action Plan 4 i.e Lobbying by Christine Lee's Team.Christine Lee would have an informal meeting with Tony Mcnulty on May 17th.

Following are some of the notes of Christine Lee's meeting held on 27th April.

What stage is the campaign now?

The overall strategy is still very much based on lobbying with the Home Office.
Christine has scheduled an informal meeting with Tony Mcnulty on May 17th.
It is important she received as much support as possible by this date so she can lay the greatest pressure on the minister at the meeting.

What is being done to maximise the impact at the meeting:

1. Andrew Dismore has already agreed to be the spokesperson for the campaign in the House of Common.
http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?l ... y&id=25638

2. He will submit a PUBLIC PETITION at the House of Common on the change of rules.
Public Petition is a special procedure at the parliament for the public to air their grievances. Although unlikely of getting a full debate at the common, the MP can make a statement on the petition in the Common. This would force the department responsible to investigate the grievances and lay a reply to the petition. Typically we will need to gather at least 1000 signatures for this to be of any significance, although, it is possible to submit the petition with less signatures.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/p07.pdf
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_ ... itions.cfm

As this is an Official Procedures, the rules for the layout of this petition are very strict and a special petition form needed to be signed. I will post it here as soon as I can a copy.

3. He will also talk to other MPs to gather support and get them to make direct call to Tony Mcnulty to putting pressure on him.

4. As the chairman of the Common Select Committee for Human Right, he will also look at any breach of Human Right Law on the Change of rules.

5. Lord Dholakia, Liberal Democrat has agreed to be the spoke person for the campaign; He has already gathered support from a few other peers and hopes to raise the issue at the House of Lord.
http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?l ... y&id=26795

6. General Public must now be encouraged to sign the new petition so we can get this issue raised at the House of Common. Herbalists, Supermarkets, Clansmen associations and other suitable venues should be targeted to place a book of petition to gather signatures not only from the Chinese, but also customers and general public who come to the premises.

7. All the existing Petition should continue and be presented either to Mcnulty or the Prime minister. This form of petition do not required the small stringent layout, so a mixture of any form of petition would be acceptable as long as it is for the issue. It can partly be Christine's original petitions, partly from the print-out of the e-petitions, and partly be other petitions.

8. Continue to write to the MP with a clear aim of getting him to present your case/letter to the HO minister. If a lay person sends a letter to the HO, HO can easily ignore it, but HO has to response to an MP letter.

9. Continue to invite the MP to support the Early Day Motion EDM, but do not let them off the hook once they sign the EDM, make sure he write to HO minister as well and follow it up. From Andrew Dismore's personal experience, there are over 2200 EDM at one time, most of them will be buried, NONE will ever get debated. The key is to get cross-party support by phrasing it in a way acceptable to all so everyone can feel they can subscribe to it.It is more like a special OPIONION POLL for the government to see how the MP feels and has little real power. It can however exert additional pressure to Mcnulty if enough MP subscribe to it. But this kind of pressure is a lot less then having the MP send a letter or even make a call to HO. Many MP use EDM as a kind of cope up, so it appeared to have done something for the affected public, but he know he haven't affected anyone in the Government by this kind of "vote"

10. Start a new campaign to get people to visit the MP's Surgery and get the message across directly.

11. Whenever there is a response from the MP, send it to Christine, so she can collect it as part of the evidence to Mcnulty and also draft a new letter to tackle the MP.

12. The Turkish Community will work closely with Christine's team and try to come up with an e-version of the letters with a choice of hardship example for supporters to produce their tailor made MP letters.

13. The Arab community has provided names and contact of MP who has already agreed to support the campaign. Letter of support or letter of hardship evidence should be send to them so they will continue to support the campaign. The tone of these letters should show our appreciation for their efforts while reminding him/her the dire situation faced by the migrants waiting for an extra year.

First of all we should concentrate fully on these Plans.But we can continue discussing the last action 7 i.e Court Action.We should also have a close on Doctor's Campaign as it would directly affect our case too both in Parliament and in Court.

[Hidden dragon]

Court action and Demonstration will be necessary if lobbying and EDM approaches fail.

What we need to do AT CURRENT STAGE are:
(1) concentrate on lobbying + EDM, which supports each other;
(2) organise ourselves to prepare for future court action and/or demonstration. The Action 1 (ie the poster idea) serves this purpose. Forwarding emails to all people in your mailing list and ask them to forward the email again is another way to do it.

Just over this weekend, I met somebody how know nothing about the campaign. I guess more than 80% affected people don't know our campaign yet. So, to organise ourselve is important too.

For Court Action (considering its high cost) and demonstration (considering the number of people needed), WE NEED AN ORGANISATION!

WE NEED AN ORGANISATION!

[aj77]

How can we help Christine Lee's team so that she could be in a better position to put pressure on Tony Mcnulty to remove the restriction of Retrospective implementation?

i) convince him through Hardship Cases

ii)And informing him about our future plans specially mentioning the effects of our court action on Party's popularity on the basis of
a)Retrospective Implementation
b)Committments Government made in HSMP guidance policy with HSMP applicants.
c)

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

They breached their own code of Conduct

She can also show letters from HO sent to HSMP applicants at the time of Extention to apply for ILR after completion of 3 years.
She can also show the contradictory statement made by Home Secretary and Immigration Department which created tention and insecurity in current Work Permit holders/HSMP Applicants and also mentioning them the effects of losing trust and confidence on Government Policies for current and future Work related Applicants as a result of this retrospective implementation

Hidden dragon wrote:

I think these can be used in the "debate in committee" mentioned by the shadow home secretary of Lib Dems. Ideally, we need to provide a supportive document for the debate (if it goes ahead). The document should be short and precise, and can serve as evidence that the Lib Dems and Tories can refer to

We should provide all that material to LibDem Parliamentarians so that they can convince other Parliamentarians easily

[aj77]

As we know that Immigration Minister earliar rejected these hardships related to House Mortgage and Education of children but the way sowhat presented his case while replying to slor

Let's stop this about getting home fees as a reason for wanting ILR

,it is impressive i.e

I disagree. I thing that home student fees is a very strong point. HSMP was labelled from the beginning as an immigration programme (road to settlement mentioned in some booklets and requirement to make the UK one's main home). It is obviously that many people who came here on this programme intend to stay in the country as well as their children.

The main reason for the difference between home and foreign tuition fees in my opinion is as follows. International students come here to get the education and in many cases to return to their home countries. Therefore the government has no incentive to subsidise their studies. However, home students will stay in the country in many case and will benefit to the economy and the society after graduation. Thus the government gives the the incentive to go to higher education

Therefore our children should basically be eligible for home fees as they will stay in the UK after graduation. Also as rooi_ding rightfully mentioned we have been paying the taxes for last 4 years. In addition you should not forget that every highly skilled migrant (or any other migrant with higher degree) automatically saves the government around 100,000 pounds: the state does not pay for early years care, schooling and university and does not bear any other costs associated with children. So I guess we have all right for home student fees for our children

We need to explain our hardship cases like this and if Government couldn't convince atleast court will be convinced,I hope

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

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

We should provide as much Hardship Cases to Christine Lee's Team and LibDem Parliamentarians as we can and these should be written in a convincing way so that they can present our case in more convincing way.
Number of Affectees and Hardship cases will matter too.

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

Explaination of this will also be useful for Christine Lee's Team and LibDem Parliamentarians.

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

[aj77]

tobiashomer wrote:

re hardhsips of "4-to-5" change. besides the (very real) difficulty in getting a mortgage (and thus putting into practice the "intention to make Britain our home" that is one of the prerequisites for HSMP;

Nice way of presentation by linking the morgage problem to one of the prerequisite of HSMP.
Another serious hardship could be,

if the visa holder should die prior to ILR, his dependants would have no right to stay in the country

.

Right now we need more hardship cases to strengthen our case not only to convince Government but also for the court action too.
We need more affectees and people who has the objection for the retrospective implementation.

For me serious hardship is that," I lost the trust and confidence on Government promises and committments.As a result ,I feel mysel to be insecure and in an uncertain situation.For me trust is the base for almost every sort of deal in our daily life.I see obeying the law is also sort of fulfilling legal promise and if you don't fulfill it properly, you can't run the system of society properly

[aj77]

This is the latest update from Chineese Discussion Board


THIS IS THE BEST WAY RIGHT NOW. Sign the NEW form prepared by MP Andrew Dismore and return to Christine.

http://www.558.net/resource/petition_le ... _years.doc
I hope this will work now

if this succeed, all the other methods will not be needed.

if this fail, you will have plenty time to work on all the other methods.

The petition is most urgent

[tobiashomer]

I am afraid the link does not work iin my browser, is it just me?

This is the latest update from Chineese Discussion Board

THIS IS THE BEST WAY RIGHT NOW. Sign the NEW form prepared by MP Andrew Dismore and return to Christine.

http://www.558.net/resource/petition_le ... _years.doc

if this succeed, all the other methods will not be needed.

if this fail, you will have plenty time to work on all the other methods.

The petition is most urgent

[tobiashomer]

a few suggestions; where the petition says:

, including with retrospective effect for those who had applied before 3rd April 2006. We believe the rule has a negative impact on existing work-related category visa holders, who were under the impression that they were eligible to apply for ILR in the United Kingdom after 4 years.

I think this should be a little more specific, and would say:

, including with retrospective effect for those who were granted work permits or HSMP visas and began working here under the old rules, that is before 3rd April 2006. The new rule has many negative impacts on the this group, who are highly qualified, tax-paying residents who chose to move to this country and planned their lives on the explicit undertaking from HM Government that they would qualify for ILR after 4 years.

[aj77]

Most Important Work To Do Now


THIS IS THE BEST WAY RIGHT NOW. Sign the NEW form prepared by MP Andrew Dismore and return to Christine.

http://www.558.net/resource/petition_le ... _years.doc

if this succeed, all the other methods will not be needed.

if this fail, you will have plenty time to work on all the other methods.

The petition is most urgent

What is being done to maximise the impact at the meeting:

1. Andrew Dismore has already agreed to be the spokesperson for the campaign in the House of Common.
http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?l ... y&id=25638
2. He will submit a PUBLIC PETITION at the House of Common on the change of rules.
Public Petition is a special procedure at the parliament for the public to air their grievances. Although unlikely of getting a full debate at the common, the MP can make a statement on the petition in the Common. This would force the department responsible to investigate the grievances and lay a reply to the petition. Typically we will need to gather at least 1000 signatures for this to be of any significance, although, it is possible to submit the petition with less signatures.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/p07.pdf

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_ ... itions.cfm

As this is an Official Procedures, the rules for the layout of this petition are very strict and a special petition form needed to be signed. I will post it here as soon as I can a copy.

3. He will also talk to other MPs to gather support and get them to make direct call to Tony Mcnulty to putting pressure on him.

4. As the chairman of the Common Select Committee for Human Right, he will also look at any breach of Human Right Law on the Change of rules

MP DAVID DISMORE PETITION FORM

here is the New petition form. Please Print it out as it is and do not make any change becoz the house of common has strict rules on this one if we were to present it at the parliment
http://www.558.net/resource/petition_le ... _years.doc

please get as many name on as possible. we need at least 1000 before may 17

Christine Lee (Solicitor)
Director of North London Chinese Association

If you have any question regarding this meeting, please do not hesitate to contact Miss Karen LI on 020 8200 8288 ( Address : North London Chinese Association, Unit 3, CBC, 126 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5HD

[timefactor]

IMHO linking Mortgage issue to hardship is not a good idea. It is not difficult to get mortgage if you have regular income to same bank for 20-24 months.

You may not be offered the best deal, but definitely a good deal. This is from my personal experience (also couple of mates). I got mortgage after spending 18 months in country with regular income

[sowhat]

a few suggestions; where the petition says:

, including with retrospective effect for those who had applied before 3rd April 2006. We believe the rule has a negative impact on existing work-related category visa holders, who were under the impression that they were eligible to apply for ILR in the United Kingdom after 4 years.

I think this should be a little more specific, and would say:

, including with retrospective effect for those who were granted work permits or HSMP visas and began working here under the old rules, that is before 3rd April 2006. The new rule has many negative impacts on the this group, who are highly qualified, tax-paying residents who chose to move to this country and planned their lives on the explicit undertaking from HM Government that they would qualify for ILR after 4 years.

as I understand the petition has been approved by the parliamentary committee or department responsible for the petitions. There are very strict requirements to wording and the form of the petitions which can be presented in the Parliament. So there is no way now to change anything in the wording as it may invalid the petition.

[olisun]

, including with retrospective effect for those who were granted work permits or HSMP visas and began working here under the old rules, that is before 3rd April 2006. The new rule has many negative impacts on the this group, who are highly qualified, tax-paying residents who chose to move to this country and planned their lives on the explicit undertaking from HM Government that they would qualify for ILR after 4 years.

In case of WP it's not the contract (not employment) between the govt. and the WP holder but a contract between the employee and the employer who hires him / her.

It's the employer who files the WP on behalf of the employee and employee agrees to the terms and conditions of the employer, So how are you going to hold the govt. for this?

Also if the employee decides to lay of a employee on WP, who has still got a valid WP, are your going to hold the govt. responsible for that also?

[morerightsformigrants]

although what you are saying it's true wp holders only has a work agreement with the employer and not with the govertment in the home office website it clearly says that after completion of 4 years and if you still have a job offer you can apply for settlement. so that it's a condition set by the government which most wp holder consider when they were making the decision to come here.

, including with retrospective effect for those who were granted work permits or HSMP visas and began working here under the old rules, that is before 3rd April 2006. The new rule has many negative impacts on the this group, who are highly qualified, tax-paying residents who chose to move to this country and planned their lives on the explicit undertaking from HM Government that they would qualify for ILR after 4 years.

In case of WP it's not the contract (not employment) between the govt. and the WP holder but a contract between the employee and the employer who hires him / her.

It's the employer who files the WP on behalf of the employee and employee agrees to the terms and conditions of the employer, So how are you going to hold the govt. for this?

Also if the employee decides to lay of a employee on WP, who has still got a valid WP, are your going to hold the govt. responsible for that also?

[garichd]

Can some one please Draft a mail, which can then be send to friends and colleagues as to increase awareness.

[tobiashomer]

Fine, let's hope for the best. In future I definitely think we should say something stronger than just we were "under the impression" we had ILR after 4 years. We had what for all intents and purposes was a contract!

I had a mortgage rejected because I do not have permanent residency, btw.

a few suggestions; where the petition says:

, including with retrospective effect for those who had applied before 3rd April 2006. We believe the rule has a negative impact on existing work-related category visa holders, who were under the impression that they were eligible to apply for ILR in the United Kingdom after 4 years.

I think this should be a little more specific, and would say:

, including with retrospective effect for those who were granted work permits or HSMP visas and began working here under the old rules, that is before 3rd April 2006. The new rule has many negative impacts on the this group, who are highly qualified, tax-paying residents who chose to move to this country and planned their lives on the explicit undertaking from HM Government that they would qualify for ILR after 4 years.

as I understand the petition has been approved by the parliamentary committee or department responsible for the petitions. There are very strict requirements to wording and the form of the petitions which can be presented in the Parliament. So there is no way now to change anything in the wording as it may invalid the petition.

[aj77]

If you could see the document ,
A Point-Based System:
Making Migration Work for Britain,
This was being presented to Parliament by Secretary of State for the Home Department in March 2006.
The link is
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ ... iew=Binary

76. In question 12 we asked: Would the proposed outline design for Tiers 1 and 2 exclude any migrants who enter the UK under the current Work Permit or HSMP arrangements? As many respondents said, this was a difficult question to answer and the answer might change according to the way in which the points-based system developed. Of the 240 respondents who answered this question, just over half (58%) thought that it would. However, the examples given were almost all of people who would, under the proposals in this document, .t under other Tiers (e.g. those coming on youth mobility schemes) or indeed those who will continue to qualify under the points schemes outlined here for Tiers 1 and 2.


And if Government informed it clearly to them that Government made commitments with them and Government will have to break their commitments and as a result Government's Credibility and reliability will be at stake These work related immigrants set their life plans according to commitments made with them and not only their life plans would be disturbed but also they would lose the trust and confidence on Government 's current and future Policies and Committments .They would feel themselves to be insecure and in an uncertain situation,surely the percentage would be much higher than 58%. and if the same feedback could be applied for 4-5 year rule change as Government did not do any research on it Still we feel Retrospective Implementation is not according to the feedback they received
Christine Lee's Team should use this point too while meeting with immigration Minister and LibDem Leaders can also use it for convincing other Parliamentarians.Any opinion?

[tobiashomer]

Can some one please Draft a mail, which can then be send to friends and colleagues as to increase awareness.

Dear [friend/colleague],
I apologise in advance for bothering you, but I would like to ask you to take a minute of your time to consider something the Government is doing that is causing a lot of distress and unfairness to one segment of the population, to which I happen to belong.

As you may know I am in the UK on a [work permit/highly skilled migrant visa]. I and people like me came to this country to work, and our entry to the UK and the work we do has been approved by the Home Office under the publicly announced rules in effect at the time we applied for entry and in most cases for extension of our stay. We have had to prove that we are gainfully employed, and as a result we pay our taxes and NI contributions like any UK citizen (though some of us like to point out that we came in as fully-fledged taxpayers whom the Public Purse has not had to educate or train...).

One of the most important of those Rules stated clearly that in any work-related immigration category, we would have the right to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR or settlement in the UK) after 4 years of residence provided we fully abide by the stringent rules and regulations governing our presence here.

Now I, like many others in this category, have kept my part of the bargain, and I was looking forward to achieving settlement in [date], at the end of my 4 years. This date was an important part of my plans, as with ILR one finds many things a lot easier: mortgages at normal rates, the ability of children to study at UK universities paying resident fees (only fair since we have been paying taxes and our children have been paying very high international fees for 4 years!); and especially the legal right of our spouses and children to remain in the country should the primary visa holder die. If this were to happen before ILR, the dependants would have to make a special appeal and rely on the "sympathy" of the Home Office official dealing with the case.

The Home Office is in the process of creating a new, points-based migration control system for the UK. This appears to be clearer and more objective than the present system; in fact it is partly modelled on the current, points-based Highly Skilled Migrants Programme which it will replace, applying the points system to all "tiers" of migration.

No-one reasonable has any objection to this. However, as part of the evolving approach to migration, the old "4 years to ILR" rule is being changed to require 5 years for all work-related immigration categories. Even that would not be a problem, if it were applied to all applicants in the future, who would know what was being offered as well as what is being required of them. The problem is that the length of residence required for ILR is being changed RETROSPECTIVELY for people who entered under the previous rules. Thus someone like me who came here on the understanding that I would achieve ILR for me and my family in [date, year], though I have fulfilled all the requirements asked of me, worked hard, paid my taxes and not broken the law, find that the goal posts have been moved in mid-match.

Now if ILR ever comes it will not be until [month, year], requiring another application for "further leave to remain" and making the period of uncertainty for my family (should anything happen to me) longer by a year; disrupting my children's plans to undertake advanced study; and making it virtually impossible for me to, at last, get a mortgage under reasonable conditions. And one of the conditions for entry under the Highly Skilled Migrants Programme is EXPLICITLY that the we promise to "make the UK our home"!

Well, I and thousands more like me thought we knew a thing or two about the British sense of fair play. We like this country and have tried our hardest to make it our home, but I cannot tell you how shocked and dismayed we are that the Government would fail to abide by its part of the bargain. No, we are not poor asylum-seekers or indigent refugees, and as such are not deserving of pity or extra consideration, nor are we asking for them. We do feel that, having kept our side of the bargain, the Home Office should do the same. The new system apears to be sensible and fair in almost all respects; but retrospective application of a rule-change which causes hardship, is unfair, arbitrary, and contrary to the legal and constitutional tradition of this great country. Especially as this harmful result is probably unintended, and the solution is so simple!

If you agree, may I ask that you print the attached petition, sign it (and ask your friends and family to do so), and either send it to me or to Christine Lee (Solicitor)
Director of North London Chinese Association
Unit 3, CBC, 126 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5HD


http://www.558.net/resource/petition_le ... _years.doc

Thank you sincerely for your time and attention!

[garichd]

its very long..
can we shrink it down by giving the refrence of the Board/Thread.
it should be short and only contain the usefull information.

Also I am thinking of sending this to People only who are affected by this change.

the reason will be to
1) Increase awareness so that they know they are affected and
2) They should know we are fighting against it and they can be part of it.
3) People should be aware of this Board/Thread .

gari.

Can some one please Draft a mail, which can then be send to friends and colleagues as to increase awareness.

Dear [friend/colleague],
I apologise in advance for bothering you, but I would like to ask you to take a minute of your time to consider something the Government is doing that is causing a lot of distress and unfairness to one segment of the population, to which I happen to belong.

As you may know I am in the UK on a [work permit/highly skilled migrant visa]. I and people like me came to this country to work, and our entry to the UK and the work we do has been approved by the Home Office under the publicly announced rules in effect at the time we applied for entry and in most cases for extension of our stay. We have had to prove that we are gainfully employed, and as a result we pay our taxes and NI contributions like any UK citizen (though some of us like to point out that we came in as fully-fledged taxpayers whom the Public Purse has not had to educate or train...).

One of the most important of those Rules stated clearly that in any work-related immigration category, we would have the right to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR or settlement in the UK) after 4 years of residence provided we fully abide by the stringent rules and regulations governing our presence here.

Now I, like many others in this category, have kept my part of the bargain, and I was looking forward to achieving settlement in [date], at the end of my 4 years. This date was an important part of my plans, as with ILR one finds many things a lot easier: mortgages at normal rates, the ability of children to study at UK universities paying resident fees (only fair since we have been paying taxes and our children have been paying very high international fees for 4 years!); and especially the legal right of our spouses and children to remain in the country should the primary visa holder die. If this were to happen before ILR, the dependants would have to make a special appeal and rely on the "sympathy" of the Home Office official dealing with the case.

The Home Office is in the process of creating a new, points-based migration control system for the UK. This appears to be clearer and more objective than the present system; in fact it is partly modelled on the current, points-based Highly Skilled Migrants Programme which it will replace, applying the points system to all "tiers" of migration.

No-one reasonable has any objection to this. However, as part of the evolving approach to migration, the old "4 years to ILR" rule is being changed to require 5 years for all work-related immigration categories. Even that would not be a problem, if it were applied to all applicants in the future, who would know what was being offered as well as what is being required of them. The problem is that the length of residence required for ILR is being changed RETROSPECTIVELY for people who entered under the previous rules. Thus someone like me who came here on the understanding that I would achieve ILR for me and my family in [date, year], though I have fulfilled all the requirements asked of me, worked hard, paid my taxes and not broken the law, find that the goal posts have been moved in mid-match.

Now if ILR ever comes it will not be until [month, year], requiring another application for "further leave to remain" and making the period of uncertainty for my family (should anything happen to me) longer by a year; disrupting my children's plans to undertake advanced study; and making it virtually impossible for me to, at last, get a mortgage under reasonable conditions. And one of the conditions for entry under the Highly Skilled Migrants Programme is EXPLICITLY that the we promise to "make the UK our home"!

Well, I and thousands more like me thought we knew a thing or two about the British sense of fair play. We like this country and have tried our hardest to make it our home, but I cannot tell you how shocked and dismayed we are that the Government would fail to abide by its part of the bargain. No, we are not poor asylum-seekers or indigent refugees, and as such are not deserving of pity or extra consideration, nor are we asking for them. We do feel that, having kept our side of the bargain, the Home Office should do the same. The new system apears to be sensible and fair in almost all respects; but retrospective application of a rule-change which causes hardship, is unfair, arbitrary, and contrary to the legal and constitutional tradition of this great country. Especially as this harmful result is probably unintended, and the solution is so simple!

If you agree, may I ask that you print the attached petition, sign it (and ask your friends and family to do so), and either send it to me or to Christine Lee (Solicitor)
Director of North London Chinese Association
Unit 3, CBC, 126 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5HD


http://www.558.net/resource/petition_le ... _years.doc

Thank you sincerely for your time and attention!

[olisun]

One of the most important of those Rules stated clearly that in any work-related immigration category, we would have the right to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR or settlement in the UK) after 4 years of residence provided we fully abide by the stringent rules and regulations governing our presence here.

are you sure? can you prove that you have the right to Indefinite Leave to Remain ?

[tobiashomer]

One of the most important of those Rules stated clearly that in any work-related immigration category, we would have the right to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR or settlement in the UK) after 4 years of residence provided we fully abide by the stringent rules and regulations governing our presence here.

are you sure? can you prove that you have the right to Indefinite Leave to Remain ?

strange question: HSMP booklet, IND website prior to 3 April, extension letter from HO saying so.. is that not a right? perhaps: I came here believing I had a right.

[Kavik]

Please stop sending possesive replies.

[tobiashomer]

its very long..
can we shrink it down by giving the refrence of the Board/Thread.
it should be short and only contain the usefull information.

Also I am thinking of sending this to People only who are affected by this change.

the reason will be to
1) Increase awareness so that they know they are affected and
2) They should know we are fighting against it and they can be part of it.
3) People should be aware of this Board/Thread .

gari.

sorry if I went overboard. maybe someone can use the long version for friends/colleagues who are not in the same boat but might be sympathetic if they knew what was going on. for our group of affected people I would just send a brief note with the link urging them to get on the bandwagon as soon as possible.