5 years for ILR rule implemented

try-one · Post by **try-one** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:51 pm

Moved

chibuya · Post by **chibuya** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:03 pm

Would you please make it clear? What did Lin Homer and Lyam Birne say? Where could I find it?

try-one wrote:Hello,
Listening to Lin Homer (Director General, IND) and Lyam Birne (HO Minister) during their interview with the Parlament Home Affairs Committee, it became clear that we are in for a new shock when they implement the new Immigration and Nationality Act comes into force later in 2006.

Think about 4-5 retrospective change and now prepare yourself to reapply under the "new points system"; imagine after living here and paying taxes you will receive a letter from HO declining your application nased on a new points system, new requirements you didn't know when you applied in 2002, 2003, 2004....again they will put on us a retrospective change.... second shock.

Many of us are sitting comfortably at home thinking, well, one more year....not a problem.....THINK AGAIN....you may loose your visa because of the new changes and then IT WILL BE TOO LATE.

Think about it and lets ACT NOW!

try-one · Post by **try-one** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:07 pm

moved

chibuya · Post by **chibuya** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:09 pm

Thanks Tryone:)

Do you mean that if we already have WP or HMSP we need to re-apply them under the pionts systems?

try-one wrote:It was on tv today, 9pm.
BBC Parliament, just finished, took about one hour, they are describing how they plan to "fix" the immigration problem....
All their comments connected to the "new points system" between the lines is clear that at the end of the year we will have a major change on the way the visas are structured....some references to employers taken more responsability....at one point it looked like a mix of point and WP (points and employer support)....but we will have to apply again for our visas anyway....again it will be retrospective....

try-one · Post by **try-one** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:09 pm

moved

try-one · Post by **try-one** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:13 pm

Moved

chibuya · Post by **chibuya** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:21 pm

Where I could find this information in writing?

try-one wrote:Yes,
It looks like again they will apply a retrospective change....we will have to apply again, and some of us will not have success with the application....

try-one · Post by **try-one** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:22 pm

I don't know, it was filmed on the 13th June; so the transcripts should be available in a few weeks.

chibuya · Post by **chibuya** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:34 pm

can not find it online- well.. if it is true it is definately bad news!!

try-one wrote:I don't know, it was filmed on the 13th June; so the transcripts should be available in a few weeks.

Post by **John** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:21 pm

As regards the Oral Evidence given to the Home Office Committee on Tuesday, you can read the uncorrected evidence by clicking here.

chibuya · Post by **chibuya** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:47 am

Thanks John

But try one, I could not see any content mentioning what you mentioned? Would you mind to post it here?

Post by **John** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:41 am

chibuya, I have to say, neither can I see anything to suggest that existing HSMP and/or WP holders will need to apply under the points-based system.

Try-one, can you point out the actual words you are referring to?

try-one · Post by **try-one** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:03 am

I moved the posts to anothe thread, more appropriate, http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=8476
thanks

tobiashomer · Post by **tobiashomer** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:36 pm

Let's suppose they DO require existing HSMP or WP holders to apply under the new points system: does ANYONE think they would make the only (relatively) generous part of the new system (ILR after 2 years for Tier 1) applicable to people already here and who would thus qualify immediately for ILR, provided they met the Tier 1 conditions? No, of course, "the UK does not pass retrospective legislation" or whatever the party line is. Meaning the good parts are only for new people, the bad ones are for us.

as to the sophistic disclaimer that this country does not pass retrospective laws, some clarification might be useful. "Retrospective", like "retractive", is not a term of art here. What we are really complaining about is "ex post facto" application of a new law:

quote
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from something done afterward") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or to aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was at the time it was committed; or to change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or to alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted. Conversely, an ex post facto law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retroactively.

A hypothetical example: someone committed a high-profile, brutal murder, but the public thinks the existing laws will not punish the murderer severely enough; so the legislature enacts laws that will more severely punish those who have committed the crime of murder ensuring that this specific murderer will get a prison sentence longer than that prescribed at the time he committed the crime.

A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of these kinds of laws is also known as Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.

Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive legislation, though some have suggested that judge-made 'law' is retroactive as a new precedent applies to events that occurred prior to the judicial decision. In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible as parliamentary supremacy allows the parliament to pass any law it wishes. However, in a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited.
unquote

clearer, perhaps, but no solution in sight!

nonothing · Post by **nonothing** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:48 am

a new EDM started by Andrew Dismore

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetai ... ESSION=875

CHINESE COMMUNITY PROTEST AGAINST CHANGE IN IMMIGRATION RULES 16.06.2006

Dismore, Andrew
That this House welcomes the demonstration in Parliament Square on 16th June by the British Chinese community, the first time ever they have mounted such a protest; notes they were joined by people from the UK's other minority communities, united in opposition to the Government's decision to change the immigration rules so that legal migrants, especially those on the Highly Skilled Migrant Workers programme, will have to wait five instead of four years for indefinite leave to remain; notes that those workers who have no recourse to public funds, but on the contrary, pay taxes and make a major contribution to the economy, now face uncertainty and hardship; and supports their demand that the Government should bring in transitional arrangements to allow those already in the UK before the rule change to qualify under the previous four year rule.

supertiger · Post by **supertiger** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:06 am

nonothing wrote:a new EDM started by Andrew Dismore

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetai ... ESSION=875

CHINESE COMMUNITY PROTEST AGAINST CHANGE IN IMMIGRATION RULES 16.06.2006

Dismore, Andrew
That this House welcomes the demonstration in Parliament Square on 16th June by the British Chinese community, the first time ever they have mounted such a protest; notes they were joined by people from the UK's other minority communities, united in opposition to the Government's decision to change the immigration rules so that legal migrants, especially those on the Highly Skilled Migrant Workers programme, will have to wait five instead of four years for indefinite leave to remain; notes that those workers who have no recourse to public funds, but on the contrary, pay taxes and make a major contribution to the economy, now face uncertainty and hardship; and supports their demand that the Government should bring in transitional arrangements to allow those already in the UK before the rule change to qualify under the previous four year rule.

There are already 17 MPs have signed this EDM so please write to yr MPs again and urge them to sign or support if possible.

pluto · Post by **pluto** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:22 am

Try one, if what you interpreted is true, that will be a very bad news..

tvt · Post by **tvt** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:47 am

As a leading immigration lawyer told me, it is not by accident that the 4-5 year change is coincided with the new point based system.

The aim is to reduce the number of economic migrants qualifying for settlement so as to pick and choose only the ones who will bring substantial contribution to the UK.

supertiger · Post by **supertiger** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:02 pm

tvt wrote:As a leading immigration lawyer told me, it is not by accident that the 4-5 year change is coincided with the new point based system.

The aim is to reduce the number of economic migrants qualifying for settlement so as to pick and choose only the ones who will bring substantial contribution to the UK.

Presumably it is not by accident too that they want to bring an amnesty to illegal immigrants for the huge contribution they make!

pluto · Post by **pluto** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:03 pm

I am thinking of wirting into the Home office 's enquiry line to ask them to clarify this issue

- whether people already hold a work permit/ HSMP need to - re apply under the proposed pionts systems?

their email is indpublisenquiries@ind.homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

if our email flood in - it is maybe a good way to raise attendtion to the homeoffice??

Post by **John** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:05 pm

Andrew Dinsmore did indeed present the petition to Parliament on Friday, but much earlier in the day than previously intimated. Indeed at 9.44.am ... not 3.00.pm.

Click here to read the report in Hansard, the record of proceedings in Parliament.

first2last4 · Post by **first2last4** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:17 pm

pluto wrote:I am thinking of wirting into the Home office 's enquiry line to ask them to clarify this issue

- whether people already hold a work permit/ HSMP need to - re apply under the proposed pionts systems?

their email is indpublisenquiries@ind.homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

if our email flood in - it is maybe a good way to raise attendtion to the homeoffice??

Good to be proactive.

But I wont trust the reply by email or phone as we have already witnessed the betrayal of 4-5 yrs retrospective rules for ILR. Most of the HO's reply for 4-5 yrs were always what we though should be (i.e. it wont be retrospective) but it never happened.

Having said that can anyone suggest a better alternative or different approach to ensure that they dont betray us for the second time, maybe get something promised in writing from the HO...

nonothing · Post by **nonothing** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:51 pm

pluto wrote:maybe get something promised in writing from the HO...

that's what i'm going to do. not sure if it will be useful or not in the future. but at least i can have a hard copy from the HO. i suggest everyone write to the HO to raise your concern of the further betrayal as well as to your MP.

if something they can do once, surely they can do it twice.

seff_efrican · Post by **seff_efrican** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:29 pm

supertiger wrote:
tvt wrote:As a leading immigration lawyer told me, it is not by accident that the 4-5 year change is coincided with the new point based system.

The aim is to reduce the number of economic migrants qualifying for settlement so as to pick and choose only the ones who will bring substantial contribution to the UK.
Presumably it is not by accident too that they want to bring an amnesty to illegal immigrants for the huge contribution they make!

I don't think they will make everyone already on WP/HSMP re-apply for visas, however come the time you want to apply for ILR (probably near the end of your visa) you'll need the points to get ILR. Perhaps the same points system will affect the issue of new visas from that point.

Slightly off topic perhaps - My workpermit was issued in 2002, and valid for 5 years. Is this standard practice, given that at the time one could get ILR after only 4 years? I.e. why give out visas valid for longer than they were needed for? Did they plan this as far back as 2002 ??

It would be interesting to see what sort of amnesty illegals will get - it could be something like a 2 year WP, at the end of which they won't qualify for enough points and could be sent home.

tvt · Post by **tvt** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:55 pm

Granting 5 year WPs has been a standard practice since 2001 as long as your employer had requested that and he was established enough.

The idea was to allow some more time for WP applicants to make arrangments for travel and visa.

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

5 years for ILR rule implemented

Moved

Re: Mark my words!