Hey guys,
I think it's time we write a long petition to those people explaning in as detailed a way as possible why we are so disappointed with the absence of transitional arrangements for the 4-5 change.
I tried to sketch out a draft, so any changes/additions/suggestions are more than welcome. Moreover, I need some help in writing the two last sections of the letter, so if anyone can do that, it'd be great.
Anyway, here it is:
Call for better transitional arranagements for recent changes in immigration policy
Dear Mr. Blair / Mr. Reid,
We are writing to you regarding the recent change in immigration policy (HC 974 later superceded by HC 1016) that extends the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain in the UK for employment-related migrant categories from four to five years. This change was put forward by Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP on the 13th March 2006 and took effect on the 3rd of April 2006.
We do not oppose the changes as such. The only issue that causes great concern is the way they were implemented. Unlike previous changes in immigration rules, no transitional arrangemnts have now been made for those already living and working in the UK.
We consider such implementation of the rules retroactive and unfair to those who have entered the country on merit-based employment visas and we plea for you to support the introduction of better transitional arrangements, allowing those migrant workers who were already in the UK at the moment of the implementation of the new rules to apply for Indefinite Leave to remain after four years of stay.
Below we shall try to outline the following points:
- how we are affected by the absence of transitional arrangements,
- why we feel the absense of transitional arrangements is unfair and retroactive (albeit they might not have been so in strict juridical sense),
- what arguments the Immigration Minister Tony McNulty has provided in supprort of the implementation of the changes without transitional arrangements and why we think they are not fully justified,
- what other MP's think of the changes, and, finally,
- why we think the absence of transitional arrangements will not benefit UK's society.
--How we are affected by the absence of transitional arrangements
Highly-skilled professionals from non-EU countries who are now employed in the UK chose this country as a place to live and work for a number of reasons, the first one being, of course, the significance of British business and/or academic scene. However, one should not underestimate the importance that the opportunity to apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) after 4 years of stay played in their decisions to move to the UK.
We would like to stress the fact that the opportunities that a temporary work-permit-based leave to remain provides to highly-skilled migrants are significantly more limited as compared to the ILR. To name a few, people with a temporary leave to remain have difficulties getting a mortgage, cannot send their children to universities without having too pay incredibly high overseas student fees, have to subject their prospective employers to tedious and not always successful procedures of applying for work permits for them, etc. Moreover, and very importantly, staying in a country without a permanent residence permit does not provide a general sense of stability and security that everyone strives for in the modern ever-changing world.
---Why we feel the absense of transitional arrangements is unfair
We are highly skilled migrants, not asylim seekers. We were not pushed to relocate to the UK, but rather made an imformed choice between seeking employment in the UK, staying in our home countries and seeking employment in other countries. In other words, our decision to live and work in the UK was as much merit-based as the decision to permit our employment and residence in the UK was for the Home Office. This can be compared to a contract whereby both parties have an impression that they agreed on certain conditions upon which their decisions are made.
A sudden introduction of the changes means that some of the conditions which were important for our decision are no longer actual. Some of us will not be able to send a child to university this year, others will not be able to get a mortgage; someone else will have to urgently negotiate extensions of their contracts because their contract running out in December is no longer sufficient to seek permanent settlement in the UK and freely change employment. But even for those highly-skilled migrants who are not affected by such factors, the situation has changed considerably, because it made them feel vulnerable and unwanted in the country they chose to live and work. Moreover, they now know that they are not guaranteed from any other sudden changes in immigration policy to come that might affect their own important life decisions.
We appreciate that these points might still not be sufficient to state that the changes are retroactive in a strict juridical sense. However, we hope that you understand how they affect our life choices and commitments to this country made previously (up to four years ago). We shall illustrate this by the following two analogies that we believe are similar to the situation we find ourselves in.
Analogy one. One can imagine, for instanse, that a person enrolls on a 4-year degree course. All of a sudden, after they have already paid all their tuition fees and passed nearly all tests, the school announces that four years are no longer enough for a degree. To qualify, one now needs to stay at the school for an additional year and, accordingly, pay the tuition fees for one year more as well. Everyone who is unable to do it will lose all their tuition fees paid over the past 4 years and will not get any degree certificate. The school claims that the change does not affect any student's right to remain with the school and study in order to get their degree. The school promises that any student who pays another year's tuition fee and will continue to study will qualify for the degree as before. It assumes that no one would have any difficulty in completing the fifth year, since they have already paid that much for their education and done that well in so many tests, which means that they are both financially and intellectually capable.
We do have every reason to believe that if such changes were introduced at any school, they would be overturned by the government. However, highly skilled migrants do not seem to enjoy equal level of support.
Analogy two. Imagine somebody getting a four-year prison sentence for committing a certain crime. While they are in prison, the law changes and they would now be eligible for a five-year sentence instead. According to current juridical practice, since the court made a decision before the new rules were implemented, this person would still serve four, but not five years. However, if the Home Office treated the criminals in a smiliar way that it treats highly skilled migrants affected by the new changes in immigration policy, the sentense for that person would be automatically extended by one year.
Does this mean that skilled migrants have less juridical support from the Government than criminal convicts? We do hope that it does not.
---What arguments the Immigration Minister Tony McNulty has provided in supprort of the implementation of the changes without transitional arrangements and why we think they are not fully justified
The aforementioned points have been raised with the Immigration Minister Tony McNulty. Tony Dismore MP (Labour) has discussed them the Minister during a parliamentary session on 10 May 2006; the immigration lawyer Christine Lee has had private meetings with the minister; several MPs and members of public have received written replies from the Minister in response to their concerns.
The main arguments that Tony McNulty has provided in support of the implementation of the changes without transitional arrangements are the following:
1. "The change does not prevent anyone from doing anything that they are currently doing"; in other words, for absolute majority of people this is business as usual.
The reasons why we disagree with that statement are listed above. In addition, numerous letters to MP's (with their understanding and supportive replies) and to the Home Office, a petition to the House of Commons and even this letter itself indicate that people do feel very distressed by the absence of transitional arrangements.
2. "Only a small number of individuals complained about the change".
It is true that the number of complaints has still been relatively small compared to the number of people affected, which we estimate to be more than 100 000. However, this does not mean that only those who wrote letters and signed petitions feel disappointed by the change.
Firstly, there was virtually no publicity regarding the changes being made. Many people simply will not have found out about the changes until they are on the point of applying for the ILR after 4 years of stay. We believe in the stability of this country's political and economical system (which is one of the reasons why we came here) and we did not use to check the Home Office website every day. Moreover, only a relatively small number of highly skilled migrants interact with other migrants and are part of immigrant communities (preferring to work towards fuller integration into the British/European society instead), so a lot of people are not able to learn about the changes by word of mouth either.
Moreover, many skilled migrants come from countries where freedom of speech and democracy are limited, so they might not be used to open dialogue with the authorities, feeling that if they express their concerns to the Government their situation might only get worse.
Finally, migrants work very hard to make their living and contribute to UK's economy and simply do not have time for a full-on political campaign. Does Mr. McNulty suggest that until highly skilled migrants, instead of further integrating into the society, will segregate into a politically active community, their voices will not be heard? We cannot see any benefits of that move, either for the society or for ourselves.
3. "The change does not limit anyone's time with any employer or reduce their stay in the United Kingdom in any way".
This is simply untrue. The times when most posts were permanent are long gone. Many people on work permits have five-year contracts that they may not be able to extend further. The fact that they cannot get indefinite residence permits after four years will mean that they cannot freely change employment after their contracts expire. By far not every employer will want (and be able to) to offer a job for someone who needs a work permit. This might mean that those people will be in a position whereby they have to suddenly change their life plans and leave the country - a move that is not always easy to make without much prior notice.
4. "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".
We do not fully understand the merit of that argument. If Mr McNulty supposes that for most people the changes will still mean 'business as usual' then what impact will the absense of transitional arrangements have on immigration statistics? However, if the absence of transitional arrangements will indeed reduce the number of migrant workers applying for the ILR in 2007 then it will be at the expence of those who were forced, suddenly and unexpectedly, to leave the UK after four years of building their life in the UK. We believe that this would be extremely unfair to them.
5. Mr McNulty never publicly stated this himself, but we heard from several immigration workers that the real reason for not introducing any transitional arrangements is to 'clear the desk' from the backlog of ILR applications before the new tier system is introduced.
We understand that this indeed might make the situation a little bit easier for the Home Office caseworkers. But do those purely administrative benefits outweigh the distress that the absence of transitional arrangements causes to thouthands of people?
--- What other MP's think of the changes
[CAN ANYONE MAKE A COMPILATION??]
--- Why we think the absence of transitional arrangement will not benefit UK's society
[IDEAS ANYONE HOW TO WRITE IT BEST? OR MAYBE SHALL WE LEAVE THIS PART OUT AT ALL?]
In conclusion, highly skilled migrants have always been among most politically loyal and well-integrated migrant categories. We understand the importance of controlling migration and do not therefore oppose the changes in the rules as such. However, the way the changes are introduced, without appropriate transitional arrangements for those already employed in the UK, clearly makes an impression that the Government prefers not take the country's existing skilled migrants into account. We would so much like to know that it is untrue. Therefore, we plea for you to listen to our voices and introduce transitional arrangements that would allow those who are already employed in the UK by the time the new rules were introduced to still apply for the indefinite leave to remain after four years.
- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222