- 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
a11 wrote:User Sergeyvo from the Russian forum came up with a brilliant analogy to emphasize the retrospective nature of the 4 to 5 change.
He said: Imagine somebody getting a 4-year prison sentence for committing a certain crime. While they are in prison, the law changes and they would now be eligible for a 5-year sentence instead. However, since the court made a decision before the new rules were implemented, they would still serve four, but not five years. However, if the prosecution system worked the way Tony McNulty's office does, the sentense for that person would be automatically extended by one year. Therefore, skilled migrants are treated in this country worse than criminals.
I think we should make use of this analogy and write a collective letter to Mr McNulty mentioning it.
i would cite another scenario:a11 wrote:User Sergeyvo from the Russian forum came up with a brilliant analogy to emphasize the retrospective nature of the 4 to 5 change.
He said: Imagine somebody getting a 4-year prison sentence for committing a certain crime. While they are in prison, the law changes and they would now be eligible for a 5-year sentence instead. However, since the court made a decision before the new rules were implemented, they would still serve four, but not five years. However, if the prosecution system worked the way Tony McNulty's office does, the sentense for that person would be automatically extended by one year. Therefore, skilled migrants are treated in this country worse than criminals.
I think we should make use of this analogy and write a collective letter to Mr McNulty mentioning it.
Since we are of no importance to him so he doesn't bother to listen to us seriously.We need to realise him about our importance.Only then it is possible that they will think seriously.We already are doing some efforts and and we need to do lot more in this regard.After seeing Mr.Mcnaulty's comments to Christine, I don't see anyway forward talking to him anymore. He ignores every point we are making and have absolutely no concerns about us. It looks like his line of answering will never change and he will never see the problem from our point of view. Even in the House of commons his attitude is quite arrogant from the way he deals with other MPs.
I think we have to trap him some other way. Any suggestions?
I have received today a letter from my local MP, Mrs G Jackson with a letter from Mr Tony McNulty attached.
It summarizes as follows:
a. In respect to the paper "Controlling our Borders: the Five ....", during the consultation period between Feb and now the Government has not received any views on the change in the qualifying period for settlement.
b. The change is to line up with other countries.
c. The change does not affect anyone's right to remain and to 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.
d. UK does not passes retrospective legislation. It passes legislation that takes effect from the date it is passed or later. This means that it applies to those who currently have leave to remain, but the effect that you describe (na Ms Jackson) would happen wherever and whatever circumstances we changed the qualifying period.
e. There is sympathy for anyone getting a mortgage but the lending policy of banks ..... is a matter for those organisations. It is not a Government requirement. Similarly, although local authorities have a residence policy when it comes to education there is no substantial change in the way that University places are allocated as a result of our change. Nevertheless, we are ready to listen to you about any unintended hardship that are directly instigated by this change - but for most areas of life, if not all, things will simply continue as usual
We need to challenge all these policy statements of Mr McNulty with logical reasons and then we will send his policy Statement alongwith our replies to all 646 Parliamentarians.Then everybody would be in a better position to judge who is wrong.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.
A)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.
B)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.
C)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.
D)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.
E)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
But real figures are: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
indian_in_the_uk wrote:I hate Tony...............
Globetrotter wrote:I am really really pissed off now....
He was commenting on the dismissal of Charles ClarkWhat goes around, comes around.... I shall shed no tears after his flippant responses to our concerns.
We don't agree with Tony McNulty's statement, the thing which Government took into account is not of prime importance as we will continue working throughout our life whether we ll get ILR or not.E)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
i think it's great idea. now i'm wondering how many of us are from Harrow? How many of us can join the mini campaign even if they're not from Harrow? How many of us can pass the information to the people in Harrow? remember "every little helps"?nonothing wrote:Door to Door Campaigning in Harrow this weekend
Mr McNulty is MP for Harrow. As an MP, Mr McNulty is honour bound to listen to the concerns of his constituents and for obvious reasons, it is perhaps understandable that he will consider their concerns very carefully because they voted for him.
For that reason, we are thinking of organising a small party to go door to door in Harrow this Saturday, targeting restaurants and takeaways so we can get constituent letters to Tony McNulty so he can see how the rules are affecting his constituents. I’m trying to figure out the logistics at the moment, because I think it would be unfeasible for us to lug laptops and printers through Harrow town centre. If anyone lives in or near Harrow and would like to help, please let me know. Any suggestions would be more than welcome.