MP statistics for Anti-Retrospectiveness Campaign, need help

[bani]

I just sent an email to my MP, David Howarth of Cambridge through the VBSI website. I'll post again when I get a reply.

I wrote my own letter but used the VBSI one as template.

[nonothing]

well done, bani. it's definitely helping.

[supertiger]

One more LD MP: Mulholland, Greg has signed 1992.

[fairandsquare]

Hi

I`ve got reply from my local MP - Andrew MacKay, Bracknell, dated on the 17th May, 2006

" Dear XXX,

Thank you for yesterday's email the contents of which I have carefully noted. I am not able to sign these Early Day Motions but will raise your concerns with the Home Secretary immediately.

I will keep you informed of developments.

With best wishes,

Andrew MacKay"

Shall I write to him again to chase the development? The letter was issued just a day after my email was sent (16th May). I take it as a fairly positve feedback, but he is not going to sign the EDM!!

[a11]

This is very good news, fairandsquare!
Don't worry about the EDM - not all MPs are legally allowed to sign them. Moreover, EDMs are not decisive and in fact, contacting the Home Secretary directly and immediately is the best you could ask for! Let us know about any progress.

[pluto]

I have emailed Rob Wilson , MP of Reading East by email last Friday,

However no further response aprt from this auto response ---

-----------------------------------------------------------

Your email has been received and will be dealt with as soon as possible.

If you are a Reading East constituent, please ensure that you have included your full name and address. No emails will be answered without full address and contact details.

I receive a large number of emails, letters and phone calls each day but I will aim to respond to your message quickly. If you have not had a response wihtin 14 days, please email again with a reminder.

Many thanks for taking the time to write to me.

Kind regards

Rob Wilson

[supertiger]

Shall I write to him again to chase the development? The letter was issued just a day after my email was sent (16th May). I take it as a fairly positve feedback, but he is not going to sign the EDM!!

Yes why not. Can contact him again due to the minister change...

[pluto]

Should I try again or give up??

[rooi_ding]

Never Give UP

[nonothing]

updated 05/06/2006

[no-w-here]

I've got reply from my local MP (David Cameron):

Dear Dr. ***

Thank you so much for writing to David Cameron- he's asked me to thank you and to say that he appreciated what you had to say.

He's very grateful to you for taking the time to give him your views- he does take on board what people say to him and likes to keep up to date with the range of people's concerns.

Many thanks again for taking trouble to write.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Philips
Office of the Leader of the Opposition.

[supertiger]

one more LD MP has signed EDM1992: Teather, Sarah. Nonothing pls update statistics.

[nonothing]

updated on 07/06/06

[supertiger]

It is a nice thing when everyone morning you can find a few new names on the EDM1992:

Brooke, Annette
Williams, Mark

[Miss Oceania]

I have e-mailed and written a letter to my MP Lyn Brown (Lab, West Ham) and written letters to the Home Secretary and Minister for Immigration.

So far no response to my e-mail.

[supertiger]

Thanks Miss Oceania I saw yr post under the main thread too, it may take them 1 week or 2 to reply, depends on individuals. They may, as a routine procedurem farward yr letter to HO then possibly you get a standard letter like everyone already got... but still we need to let them aware teh issue. You will get reply from them anyway, just keep us posted.

[fairandsquare]

Hi

I`ve got reply from my local MP - Andrew MacKay, Bracknell, dated on the 17th May, 2006

" Dear XXX,

Thank you for yesterday's email the contents of which I have carefully noted. I am not able to sign these Early Day Motions but will raise your concerns with the Home Secretary immediately.

I will keep you informed of developments.

With best wishes,

Andrew MacKay"

Shall I write to him again to chase the development? The letter was issued just a day after my email was sent (16th May). I take it as a fairly positve feedback, but he is not going to sign the EDM!![/quote]

Further to the letter I received from my MP on the 17th May, I have received another letter from him dated on the 7 June:

" Dear XXX,

I have just received a response from the Home Secretary which I thought you ought to see immediately.

Andrew MacKay"

He attached the original letter, which was written by John Reid to him:

"Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your letter on behalf of XXX, about the change in minimum qualifying period for settlement.

The change in the minimum qualifying period for settlement was announced by the Government in February 2005 in its paper 'Controlling Our Borders: the Five Year Strategy for Asylum and Immigration'. The Governmnet consulted extensively on many of the new elements contained in that paper, principally the points based system. In the period between February and now, the time of the actural rules change, the Government has not received any views on the change on the qualifying period for settlement.

This brings us into line with practice in other countries, where 5-years is the common pattern, and helps to ensure that settlement is a final stage in an ongoing process of building up an attachment to the UK.

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.

I should also explain theat the UK does not pass 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 XXX describes would be unavoidable wherever and in whatever circumstances we changed the qualifying period.

Kind regards,

John Reid"

That's the direct response from the Home Secretary, how negative it is!

[supertiger]

That's from the standard template HO use, we all have got a same one.

[pluto]

Some comments about John Reid's reply

1 'Goverment has not received any views on the change on the qualifying period for settlement.'

- agree with John Reid there are consultation
- however, who did they consult? If they carry on the consultation among students, for instance, of course there will be no views about the 4 to 5 changes of ILR- so question A - did they consult any group will be effected by this change?
- Question B - as many of us know , when we send the enquiry to home office, immigration layers we alsway got the answer as this change will be applied to people already in the country!! My immigration lawyer told me that it is a common sense that this rule should not be applied to people already in the country. Therefore we did not send any further concerns- We are all kind of tricked!!!!


2'This means that it applies to those who currently have leave to remain, but the effect that XXX describes would be unavoidable wherever and in whatever circumstances we changed the qualifying period.'

All the home office needs to do is to make this change only applicable to new WP, HMSP applicants and people are exsting WPs holders should be allowed to apply PR under the old rule. Any new WP application after 3rd April should wait for 5 years! - As simple as that!

Hi

I`ve got reply from my local MP - Andrew MacKay, Bracknell, dated on the 17th May, 2006

" Dear XXX,

Thank you for yesterday's email the contents of which I have carefully noted. I am not able to sign these Early Day Motions but will raise your concerns with the Home Secretary immediately.

I will keep you informed of developments.

With best wishes,

Andrew MacKay"

Shall I write to him again to chase the development? The letter was issued just a day after my email was sent (16th May). I take it as a fairly positve feedback, but he is not going to sign the EDM!![/quote]

Further to the letter I received from my MP on the 17th May, I have received another letter from him dated on the 7 June:

" Dear XXX,

I have just received a response from the Home Secretary which I thought you ought to see immediately.

Andrew MacKay"

He attached the original letter, which was written by John Reid to him:

"Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your letter on behalf of XXX, about the change in minimum qualifying period for settlement.

The change in the minimum qualifying period for settlement was announced by the Government in February 2005 in its paper 'Controlling Our Borders: the Five Year Strategy for Asylum and Immigration'. The Governmnet consulted extensively on many of the new elements contained in that paper, principally the points based system. In the period between February and now, the time of the actural rules change, the Government has not received any views on the change on the qualifying period for settlement.

This brings us into line with practice in other countries, where 5-years is the common pattern, and helps to ensure that settlement is a final stage in an ongoing process of building up an attachment to the UK.

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.

I should also explain theat the UK does not pass 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 XXX describes would be unavoidable wherever and in whatever circumstances we changed the qualifying period.

Kind regards,

John Reid"

That's the direct response from the Home Secretary, how negative it is!

[rooi_ding]

Mr. John Reid Is setting himself up to go the same way that Mr. Clark went, at the end of the day when all the evidence is exposed he will be kicking himself for not taking us seriously and for not reading the VBSI letter. I think he is underestimating our determination and also our level of intelligence.

[nonothing]

updated 08/06/2006

[Miss Oceania]

Definition of "RETROSPECTIVE" from dictionary.com:

Main Entry: ret·ro·spec·tive
Pronunciation: 're-tr&-"spek-tiv
Function: adjective
: affecting things past : RETROACTIVE; specifically : of, relating to, or being a law that takes away or impairs vested rights, creates new duties or obligations, or attaches new disabilities with respect to acts and transactions completed before its enactment —ret·ro·spec·tive·ly adverb


Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

I think John Reid needs to consult with some lawyers before sending out form replies!

[no-w-here]

The change in the minimum qualifying period for settlement was announced by the Government in February 2005 in its paper 'Controlling Our Borders: the Five Year Strategy for Asylum and Immigration'.

So, in February 2005 they knew about introduction of the new rules, i.e. they had more than a year to prepare new application forms. However, these application forms has not been available till now. It is strange, isn't it?.. Unless HO lies about its real intentions.

[Papafaith]

Got a reply from my MP

"Dear xxxxxxx
Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which i have noted.
I have accordingly written to the Immigration Minister, Liam Byrne MP, raising your concerns and asking the Minister to address the issues you raise.
I will contact you again as soon as i receive a reply.
Please accept my best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Alan Keen MP
Member of Parliament for Feltham and Heston"

He wrote me on his official letter headed paper.

[nonothing]

updated on 14/06/2006