5 years for ILR rule implemented

rooi_ding · Post by **rooi_ding** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:35 pm

I agree with what you are saying supertiger

I was Planning to start an Architecture buisness with a fellow EU architect, we have all the buisness plans and our first client. I was just waiting untill May to get ILR. but I think this could be an issue if we start saying we want to start buisnesses when we are supposed to be still employed once we have ILR. Any thougts how we overcome this.............

rg1 · Post by **rg1** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:38 pm

It is worth mentioning that unless someone is able to make long term plan on UK, he/she is unlikely to invest large amount of money to UK economy (eg. setting up business etc.) Majority of WP holders send a large amount of money to their home countries. But upon granted settlement they can plan their future in UK and so invest money in UK. This is a benefit to UK economy. Considering the large number of people affected, the moneytary amount will run into billions!

nonothing · Post by **nonothing** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:57 pm

guys, i'm trying to work out an additional cost estimate of the 4-5 changes. i can't get on the HO's cretaceous website. so can you guys provide me some figures:

1. how much does a the employer pay for a WP extension?
2. how much does a WP holders pay for a FLR? normally who pay for this fee, employers or the WP holders? 50-50 of all cases?
3. how much does an HSMP holder pay for a one-year extension?
4. how much do a Ancestry Visa holder pay for a one-year extension?

are those all the addition costs of the 4-5 changes? if not, any other costs?

cheers.

supertiger · Post by **supertiger** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:59 pm

supertiger · Post by **supertiger** » Tue May 16, 2006 1:05 pm

Besides, more asylums get ILR than work categories. The gap will be even wider with the change, what will that bring?

aj77 · Post by **aj77** » Tue May 16, 2006 1:09 pm

This was Charles Clarke's response in May 2005:

...The provisions of the UK ancestry scheme on which Mr ... entered the United Kingdom will continue to apply. Mr ... will be eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom shortly before his current leave expires

.

Since the situation is still the same as UK ancestary scheme will continue to apply and and in that situation, Mr ... will be eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom shortly before his current leave expires.

Since first part of their reply is same then how second part of reply can be changes.It doesn't make sense to me either.

We need to know what is legal value of these letters.

nonothing · Post by **nonothing** » Tue May 16, 2006 1:09 pm

nonothing wrote:guys, i'm trying to work out an additional cost estimate of the 4-5 changes. i can't get on the HO's cretaceous website. so can you guys provide me some figures:

1. how much does a the employer pay for a WP extension?
2. how much does a WP holders pay for a FLR? normally who pay for this fee, employers or the WP holders? 50-50 of all cases?
3. how much does an HSMP holder pay for a one-year extension?
4. how much do a Ancestry Visa holder pay for a one-year extension?

are those all the addition costs of the 4-5 changes? if not, any other costs?

cheers.

1. £153
2. £335
3. £335
4. £335?

am i right?

supertiger · Post by **supertiger** » Tue May 16, 2006 1:58 pm

HO website should be easier accessible at late night.

Nonothing, if you want to analyse the extra cost, you may need to be careful as gaining extra income is not the main purpose of this change, but only a byproduct. So if in the near future, any of our lobbying works HO's compromise will start from the lightest ones, Let's say: exempt the extra hundreds pounds of cost to show their kindness for example... But that apparently is not what we want. So I think you can certainly criticise the raising of cost but maybe better not to make it a target...

nonothing · Post by **nonothing** » Tue May 16, 2006 2:12 pm

i'm just trying to show some financial impacts of the changes, considering the HO always says there's no impacts or what so ever.

supertiger · Post by **supertiger** » Tue May 16, 2006 2:31 pm

rooi_ding wrote:I was Planning to start an Architecture buisness with a fellow EU architect, we have all the buisness plans and our first client. I was just waiting untill May to get ILR. but I think this could be an issue if we start saying we want to start buisnesses when we are supposed to be still employed once we have ILR. Any thougts how we overcome this.............

I think what they care about is we continue to contribute tax and NI, do not apply for benefits... the business plan doesn;t need to be the next day you get ILR but some time in the near future.

nonothing · Post by **nonothing** » Tue May 16, 2006 2:38 pm

my result is a £15 millions windfall for the HO. people pay £15 millions more, and the HO doesn't even think there're impacts.

here is my estimation:
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=f ... estimation

please find if there's any miscalculation, so i can correct it.

rg1 · Post by **rg1** » Tue May 16, 2006 3:16 pm

Excellent calculation!

Besides this, there is tremendous mental setback - which can't be measured in monetary terms.

a11 · Post by **a11** » Tue May 16, 2006 3:20 pm

nonothing wrote:The reason why is because this type of restriction is a real and had direct effect on people’s lives and it is something that the Home office cannot easily argue against. If we also emphasise this effect, then we have one more angle with which to pressure the government, and this one hits a persons freedom of mobility.

There is no legal right for a visa (and neither the visas in question are issued by the UK authorities), so I believe the HO can quite easily wash their hands of this. On the other hand, we can still claim that many highly qualified workers these days have to travel a lot around the world for business reasons. And it is a well-known fact that even Schengen visas are not issued if one has less than 3 months on their temporary permit. So, by making us to renew our WPs twice within 15 months, the HO ensures that for six months out of those fifteen we won't be able to travel anywhere other than our home countries. That is, 40 (!) per cent of this time we won't be able to go to research conferences and business meetings, visit clients abroad and exchange experience at international workshops. For many posts, including, but not limited to, research and IT, such restrictions can make working conditions very difficult.

For example, I am a researcher working at a laboratory which is part of two EU consorciums. On top of that, we've got a number of collaborations with the US. Last year, on average, I travelled once in two months to research conferences, consorcium meetings and face-to-face discussions with collaborators. This means that over 15 months I'll have to cancel on average three of such trips, which can have implications for my research.

nonothing · Post by **nonothing** » Tue May 16, 2006 3:37 pm

a11 wrote:
nonothing wrote:The reason why is because this type of restriction is a real and had direct effect on people’s lives and it is something that the Home office cannot easily argue against. If we also emphasise this effect, then we have one more angle with which to pressure the government, and this one hits a persons freedom of mobility.
There is no legal right for a visa (and neither the visas in question are issued by the UK authorities), so I believe the HO can quite easily wash their hands of this. On the other hand, we can still claim that many highly qualified workers these days have to travel a lot around the world for business reasons. And it is a well-known fact that even Schengen visas are not issued if one has less than 3 months on their temporary permit. So, by making us to renew our WPs twice within 15 months, the HO ensures that for six months out of those fifteen we won't be able to travel anywhere other than our home countries. That is, 40 (!) per cent of this time we won't be able to go to research conferences and business meetings, visit clients abroad and exchange experience at international workshops. For many posts, including, but not limited to, research and IT, such restrictions can make working conditions very difficult.

For example, I am a researcher working at a laboratory which is part of two EU consorciums. On top of that, we've got a number of collaborations with the US. Last year, on average, I travelled once in two months to research conferences, consorcium meetings and face-to-face discussions with collaborators. This means that over 15 months I'll have to cancel on average three of such trips, which can have implications for my research.

i posted as the updates from CL's team. i agree with a11 though.

nonothing · Post by **nonothing** » Tue May 16, 2006 6:43 pm

TNT Magazine introduces VBSI and the campaign.

a11 · Post by **a11** » Tue May 16, 2006 7:20 pm

nonothing wrote:TNT Magazine introduces VBSI and the campaign.

congratulations, guys! i bet this is the start of a big game!

nonothing · Post by **nonothing** » Wed May 17, 2006 11:19 am

the HO shows the tame face to the illegal immigrants and shows the tough face to legal immigrants. what a government.

Illegal immigrants 'not hunted'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4985744.stm

Reid under fire in immigrants row
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4988816.stm

The retrospective changes of the immigration rules
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=background

Mr. Tony "the tough guy" McNulty on legal immigrants

"The change does not affect anyone's right to remain and work in the UK. Anyone in employment with valid leave to remain should have no difficulty in completing the fifth year."

"Changing the qualifying period to five years brings us in line with the residence criteria of other European countries. The Government does not feel that there are any benefits to be had by maintaining a different provision for the UK than applies elsewhere in the EU."

"The policy intention behind this change is to ensure that applicants for settlement in the UK have established a genuine link with the UK. There is no right time to make such a change and it is difficult to accept the argument that a particular group is worse off. The Government must be able to amend the Immigration Rules from time-to-time so that it can give effect to its policies."

"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. "

Mr McNulty should take the helmet of "IND head of removals". we need Mr David "the tame guy" Roberts in charge of legal immigrants affair.

supertiger · Post by **supertiger** » Wed May 17, 2006 11:57 am

I watched John Reid's interview on BBC breakfast news this morning. i think their attitude is because they know too difficult to change illegal immigration figures, but they have to do something so set an easier SMARTER target on us. We just need more Brits to know this.

nonothing · Post by **nonothing** » Wed May 17, 2006 12:16 pm

supertiger wrote:I watched John Reid's interview on BBC breakfast news this morning. i think their attitude is because they know too difficult to change illegal immigration figures, but they have to do something so set an easier SMARTER target on us. We just need more Brits to know this.

too right. we're the scapegoats. and HO is whitewashing their incompetence and showing the public a fake scenario of "everthing is under control".

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Wed May 17, 2006 12:19 pm

nonothing wrote:
supertiger wrote:I watched John Reid's interview on BBC breakfast news this morning. i think their attitude is because they know too difficult to change illegal immigration figures, but they have to do something so set an easier SMARTER target on us. We just need more Brits to know this.
too right. we're the scapegoats. and HO is whitewashing their incompetence and showing the public a fake scenario of "everthing is under control".

I also absolutely agree with it. For many Brits all the immigrants are the same...

motorbyke · Post by **motorbyke** » Wed May 17, 2006 12:42 pm

Whats the fuss about 5 years?
The UK government is perfectly justified in changing the immigration rules.

pumkin · Post by **pumkin** » Wed May 17, 2006 12:43 pm

The extra year aside, maybe it won't be a big upheaval in some peoples lives. However, I do consider having to pay out an extra £335 a HUGE issue, especially when you are a family and then having to pay out another amount a year down the line. THAT I think is extremely disgusting.

I think emphasis needs to be put on the fact that, if they want to push ahead with this, the LEAST they can do is extend the visas already issued for the 4 year period, for FREE !!!

nonothing · Post by **nonothing** » Wed May 17, 2006 12:50 pm

motorbyke wrote:Whats the fuss about 5 years?
The UK government is perfectly justified in changing the immigration rules.

mate, the fuss is not about 5 years.

the fuss is about the changes also affect people who entered the UK and got a WP/HSMP 4 years ago.

they didn't even know they would be affected until 13th March, just 3 weeks before the changes took effect.

someone, knowing he/she would be qualified on 4th April for 3 years and 10 months, now has to wait for another year.

mate, do you think it's justified?

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Wed May 17, 2006 12:55 pm

pumkin wrote:The extra year aside, maybe it won't be a big upheaval in some peoples lives. However, I do consider having to pay out an extra £335 a HUGE issue, especially when you are a family and then having to pay out another amount a year down the line. THAT I think is extremely disgusting.

I think emphasis needs to be put on the fact that, if they want to push ahead with this, the LEAST they can do is extend the visas already issued for the 4 year period, for FREE !!!

I have to pay 335x2=£670 as my kid is over 18 now. Well, it's quite of money for anyone. My laptop is almost half the price of it

I agree, they should've given extensions for free. It is not our fault that the rules have changed...

indian_in_uk · Post by **indian_in_uk** » Wed May 17, 2006 1:13 pm

motorbyke wrote:Whats the fuss about 5 years?
The UK government is perfectly justified in changing the immigration rules.

Check this:

MY ILR was due on 4th July'06 but because of these change in rules I have to wait for another year and this has cost me in a big way.

I had an interview with a big consultancy, everything went fine, after a number of rounds of interview, they said they are ready to recruit me but they cant because I am on HSMP and dnt have ILR. The lady said I should contact her When I get my ILR and I will be offered a position.
Now, has this been 4 years rule, I would have been working with prestigious consultancy within two months but now because of their stupid policy I am stripped off from a excellent oppertunity.

This is the kind of hard ship people face because of change in these rules and this is what this FUSS is about. Now justify this....

Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

5 years for ILR rule implemented