5 years for ILR rule implemented

[supertiger]

I believe there are a huge amount of Indian victims but it seems that we haven't seen any major campaingns from their community apart from the GP demonstration. Did we miss anything? Also, in case we need to demonstrate in the next stage, I think we need unite them too.

[sowhat]

Where can I contact Christian Lee? Can anyone provide the details please?

http://www.christine-lee.co.uk/index.htm She is a champion of the campaign against retrospective effect of the 4-to-5 change...

[rg1]

Yes, there are lots of Indian victims - especially those on IT industry. We have been hit very hard by this law. Also, jobs in IT are often not stable. So, if we lost jobs now, it means end of ILR dream for many of us!

[nonothing]

Where can I contact Christian Lee? Can anyone provide the details please?

please note Lok Wong from Christine' team has been assigned to handle specific enquires like this, feel free to call him for specific advice:

Lok is based in their Birmingham office

By Phone 0121 666 6228 – ask for Lok Wong
By Mobile 07932 829 267
By Fax 0121 666 6993
By E-mail lok.wong@christine-lee.co.uk
By Mail Christine Lee & Co Solicitors
NLCA 4 to 5 Year settlement campaign
1st Floor, Cathay Building
86 Holloway Head
Birmingham
West Midlands
B1 1NB

for more details about Christian Lee's activities:
http://www.christine-lee.co.uk/
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=navleft_1col

[supertiger]

Yes, there are lots of Indian victims - especially those on IT industry. We have been hit very hard by this law. Also, jobs in IT are often not stable. So, if we lost jobs now, it means end of ILR dream for many of us!

So instead of waiting, do you know any Indian community or organisation doing some similar compaignes? There must be some... then we can unite, otherwise if not we need to motivate them - that'll be a big proportion among the victims...

[rg1]

The problem with Indian IT professionals is that they are mostly employed by large MNCs. These companies not only wants to discourage their employees from getting ILR - they often try to foil their attempt (so that they can't quit their companies easily) for getting ILR. So, we cannot actively do any protest.

During the point based system consultation phase, these companies tried to make UK govt. understand that IT workers from India should be placed in group 5 (as temporary workers - no right to settlement). However, UK govt. decided to continue to place them in Tier 2 (leading to settlement).

Now these MNCs are obviously very happy on 5-year ILR rule.

I personally spread the message to all of my friends who had ILR due in this year. Many of whom wrote to their local MPs.

The Indian doctor's association in UK website is www.bapio.com

[timefactor]

It would be nice to see some case studies on hardship occured due this change

[Globetrotter]

I think what it means it people who were eligible as of the 2nd of April (full 4 yrs) but have not applied as of now can still apply under the old rules

What about Spring 2008?

[Hidden dragon]

These companies not only wants to discourage their employees from getting ILR - they often try to foil their attempt (so that they can't quit their companies easily) for getting ILR.

It is terrible!

rg1, could you pass on this website: Voice of Britain's Skilled Immigrants www.vbsi.org.uk to your friends and urge them to use this website as a platform to join force with us? VBSI has a strategy against the 4TO5 change and currently have many tasks in the pipeline to carry out, so vulenteers are badly needed.

VBSI shall also join force with BMA and BAPIO. Let's show the HO and MNCs our force!

[andhraguy]

It is mentioned that someone's ILR was approved while due on 22 Jun. Does anyone know any details?

The only case which was informed by John was about a guy who is qualified on 8th April .

Where did you hear about getting ILR for Jun 22nd qualified date..??

I don't think it is possible as we are still on 10th May and he/she not even qualify under old rules.

[supertiger]

It is mentioned that someone's ILR was approved while due on 22 Jun. Does anyone know any details?

The only case which was informed by John was about a guy who is qualified on 8th April .

Where did you hear about getting ILR for Jun 22nd qualified date..??

I don't think it is possible as we are still on 10th May and he/she not even qualify under old rules.

I saw it here: http://lkcn.net/eubbs/index.php?showtopic=102162&st=465
"...there is no cut off date as such, as David's office this week has got approved application for people who qualifying period is as far away as June 22nd. "

[nonothing]

It is mentioned that someone's ILR was approved while due on 22 Jun. Does anyone know any details?

The only case which was informed by John was about a guy who is qualified on 8th April .

Where did you hear about getting ILR for Jun 22nd qualified date..??

I don't think it is possible as we are still on 10th May and he/she not even qualify under old rules.

rules? honestly i don't think there really are rules when the HO officers deal with the individual cases.

about one year ago, one of my friends told me she got her UK passport only a couple of months after she initially got her ILR. I didn't ask for more details. she just told me the reason was that HO lost her chinese passport once.

now we know the HO officers are simply a bunch of jokers.

[andhraguy]

It is mentioned that someone's ILR was approved while due on 22 Jun. Does anyone know any details?

The only case which was informed by John was about a guy who is qualified on 8th April .

Where did you hear about getting ILR for Jun 22nd qualified date..??

I don't think it is possible as we are still on 10th May and he/she not even qualify under old rules.

I saw it here: http://lkcn.net/eubbs/index.php?showtopic=102162&st=465
"...there is no cut off date as such, as David's office this week has got approved application for people who qualifying period is as far away as June 22nd. "

There are quite a few messages in that link which talks about David Ho's office. Is he a solicitor then ?

Any one has details ? Appreciate your replies.

[sowhat]

It is mentioned that someone's ILR was approved while due on 22 Jun. Does anyone know any details?

The only case which was informed by John was about a guy who is qualified on 8th April .

Where did you hear about getting ILR for Jun 22nd qualified date..??

I don't think it is possible as we are still on 10th May and he/she not even qualify under old rules.

I saw it here: http://lkcn.net/eubbs/index.php?showtopic=102162&st=465
"...there is no cut off date as such, as David's office this week has got approved application for people who qualifying period is as far away as June 22nd. "

There are quite a few messages in that link which talks about David Ho's office. Is he a solicitor then ?

Any one has details ? Appreciate your replies.

he works with Christine Lee:
http://www.christine-lee.co.uk/team.htm select him in the drop-down menu.

[sowhat]

I guess my application for ILR is in HO as I can see that the money is being taken from my account...

[olisun]

I guess my application for ILR is in HO as I can see that the money is being taken from my account...

The problem with HO is they take the money first and then decide on the cases..

[RobinLondon]

Yesterday Mr Dismore (Labour, Hendon) quizzed Tony McNulty in Parliament about the expected impact of the four-to-five year change. It's a very interesting read. I have included it below for everyone's perusal. It is taken from the Parliamentary Hansard website (11/05/06). The underlined passages are what I found to be particularly relevant. Most curiously, the tack taken by the Government now seems to be that they didn't hear anything from employers about the change in the residency requirement, but they may have heard something (but not much) from individuals and their representatives. But, you know, that's not really important...

**********

Residence Requirements

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of people who will be affected by the decision to extend the period of residence for settlement; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McNulty: An assessment has been made based on the number of in-country work related applications for settlement received each year. This indicates that around 45,000 applicants may be affected by the change and will now have to wait a further year for settlement. This estimate has been made subject to certain assumptions; for instance, that applicants who are eligible will apply for settlement at the earliest opportunity, and that the broad pattern of applications will remain the same as before.

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he held with minority ethnic communities about the likely impact of the extension of the residence period for settlement prior to its introduction; what such consultations he has had since its introduction; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McNulty: The change in the minimum qualifying period for settlement affects work permit holders and those coming to the UK for employment. Our discussion of the change has, therefore, reflected this and has been principally with organisations that represent employees irrespective of their nationality or ethnic community. The Home Office has regular contact and discussions on migration and asylum issues with representatives of the minority ethnic communities.

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he held with (a) employers, (b) employers' organisations and (c) employees' organisations representing minority ethnic communities on the effects of the extension of the residency period required for settlement rights; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McNulty: The Home Office has had significant and regular contact with employers and employers' organisations to discuss the future changes to the immigration system since this increase in the minimum qualifying period for settlement was announced on seven February 2005. Between that date and the introduction of the change we received no views from employers on the substance of the policy, and the views that we have received since have been about the effect of the timing on individuals, not on sectors of business or employment. Most of the views we receive from employers in the normal course of events are that skilled workers do not stay with them for long enough, which, of course, is not affected by this change. On consultation about the effect of this change on minority ethnic communities I refer the my hon. Friend to my previous answer.

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the likely effects on (a) the employability of those on work permits, (b) employers of migrant workers and (c) inward investment of the extension of the residency period required for settlement rights in the UK; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McNulty: The change does not affect anyone's right to remain and work in the UK; anyone with valid leave to remain and who is continuing in employment will qualify to remain as before and should have no difficulty in completing the fifth year. It will, therefore, have no affect on the employability of those on work permits since their employability is linked first and foremost to the skills that they possess, whether there is an employer who continues to require those skills, and whether the skills are still not available in the resident labour market. In some cases an employer may have to obtain renewal of a work permit and to pay a fee. We wish to maintain the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for investors. But our assessment is that the length of the qualifying period for settlement is of marginal importance in inward investment decisions compared with economic factors and the specific investment opportunities available. The discussions that we have had with representatives include those who represent individual overseas investors and these discussions have reassured us that the impact of this change on its own is likely to be neutral.

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the merits of transitional arrangements for those affected by the extension of the residency period required for settlement in the UK; what representations he has received on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McNulty: The Government looked closely at the merits of introducing transitional arrangements for those affected by the increase in the minimum qualifying period for settlement. In deciding not to introduce transitional arrangements the Government took into account, amongst other things, the following: this change does not prevent anyone from doing anything that they are currently doing; it does not limit anyone's time with any employer or reduce their stay in the United Kingdom in any way; and that to introduce transitional arrangements for those who arrived when the qualifying period was four years would mean that a desirable policy would not take effect until 2011.

The Government have received representations from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and from the Chinese Association about the change as a whole and from the Royal College of Nursing about some aspects of it. In addition a small number of individuals have been in contact with the Home Office about their individual cases. We acknowledge that this is will be a disappointing change for those individuals and will provide guidance and advice to those affected.

[indian_in_uk]

This does not seem very positive, is it?

[nonothing]

robin, could you provide a link of this hansard? why i can't find it on either http://www.theyworkforyou.com or http://www.publications.parliament.uk?

cheers.

[supertiger]

According to our statistics (http://www.vbsi.org.uk/uploads/Docs/MP_Stats.htm ) only 57 MPs are contacted out of 646. That's no wonder the minister can say "only a small number of individuals"... The figure may be too conservative as they are only recorded when anyone feedback to the VBSI or discussion boards. but it may show that still the majority of them are left uncontacted. And in some areas victims are scattered so 200 people will write to 1 MP while some areas isolated - it is like election we need to get hold each of them! therefore, is it possible to send all rest MPs an email from the name of VBSI? They have a responsibity to reply. In that way we can guarantee all of them are on board...

Nonothing, could you check the poll on VBSI website seems doesn;t work...

[RobinLondon]

The actual Hansard post is the following:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... column_314

However, I would suggest following the transcripts of the debates and/or ministerial statements that are posted every day to watch for developments in this case. We should probably all become more of UK politics anyway.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... hansrd.htm

Hope this helps!

[rg1]

45,000+ people affected (actually more considering their family members) and minister says "small" number!

What rubbish....

We must continue our fight.....

[sowhat]

45,000+ people affected (actually more considering their family members) and minister says "small" number!

What rubbish....

We must continue our fight.....

I think he meant that only a small number of those who are affected expressed any concerns about the changes. The minister thinks that people give a damn about the extra year. He's wrong but comparing to 45K migrants he mentioned we represent a miserable bunch of fighters

[supertiger]

Many people in their early 4 years are not bothered, it affects most of those in the last year. So let's say 10k, how many have we seen? Christine Lee got aroudn 1,000 names on pertition, the online one has < 500 so far. the minister has the reason to say "small number of people". That;s why I am urging VSBI to send emails to all rest MPs, ask for support and sign EDMs. If we can get 50 or 100 names it would be a different story. Forget about "small number of people", HO is exactly "small number of people"!

[supertiger]

According to our statistics (http://www.vbsi.org.uk/uploads/Docs/MP_Stats.htm ) only 57 MPs are contacted out of 646. That's no wonder the minister can say "only a small number of individuals"... The figure may be too conservative as they are only recorded when anyone feedback to the VBSI or discussion boards. but it may show that still the majority of them are left uncontacted. And in some areas victims are scattered so 200 people will write to 1 MP while some areas isolated - it is like election we need to get hold each of them! therefore, is it possible to send all rest MPs an email from the name of VBSI? They have a responsibity to reply. In that way we can guarantee all of them are on board...

/quote]

If we look at the current available statistics, 29 out of 57 MPs have signed EDM, the ratio is > 50% and it may still go higher as some are still in the course of consideration. If we can contact all rest MPs, at least make them aware of this issue and if we can persusade let's say 15% sign EDM, that's more than 100 names...

Do you think this feasible?