5 years for ILR rule implemented

[Dawie]

The issue I am not clear on is this........

Surely, no matter what visa category we are talking about, the points-based system ONLY applies to actually getting the work permit.

As far as I know there will be no points system for applying for ILR no matter what visa you had leading up to your application for ILR.

Is this correct?

[Miss Oceania]

The issue I am not clear on is this........

Surely, no matter what visa category we are talking about, the points-based system ONLY applies to actually getting the work permit.

As far as I know there will be no points system for applying for ILR no matter what visa you had leading up to your application for ILR.

Is this correct?

That's my understanding as well. As far as I can make out, our eligibility for ILR is time based, not skills based. They want us to reside here for longer before we can apply for permanent settlement. I really think people are getting the wrong end of the stick about the HO applying points or tier systems to applying for ILR.

[nonothing]

The issue I am not clear on is this........

Surely, no matter what visa category we are talking about, the points-based system ONLY applies to actually getting the work permit.

As far as I know there will be no points system for applying for ILR no matter what visa you had leading up to your application for ILR.

Is this correct?

yes, it's correct. "points system for applying for ILR" is people's concern based on what the HO has done in the past 3 months.

i personally don't think that would happen. well, hopefully! but i totally understand where the concern comes from.

plus, if the HO importunes the current WP/HSMP holders to re-apply their working visas, it means they virtually apply the point-based system to the ILR anyway. and they did consult this, which means it's possible.

and for the ancestral visa holders, i don't think they're in the point-based system. so they should be safe.

[seff_efrican]

yes, it's correct. "points system for applying for ILR" is people's concern based on what the HO has done in the past 3 months.

i personally don't think that would happen. well, hopefully! but i totally understand where the concern comes from.

plus, if the HO importunes the current WP/HSMP holders to re-apply their working visas, it means they virtually apply the point-based system to the ILR anyway. and they did consult this, which means it's possible.

How would they round us all up and make us re-apply ?? They can't even keep tabs on foreigners LEAVING PRISON! If they are contemplating just giving up on the illegals by giving them amnesty, I'm pretty sure they won't be bothered tracking every one on a WP/HSMP. The only ways to do this would be to intercept at re-entry (i.e. go on holiday outside UK and try to come back), or follow up with the company who sponsored WP. It would be easier to introduce the points system for ILR applications, because they don't have to look for you - you're coming through the front door, application in hand

I wonder what they're doing with all the spare time, given that ILR applications would be virtually zero at the moment!!

[Miss Oceania]

I wonder what they're doing with all the spare time, given that ILR applications would be virtually zero at the moment!!

That's easy to answer, they are dealing with the same number of applications, they are just on the FLR forms rather than the SET(O) forms (basically identical) and they will be processing those for the next four years. The IN&D will be doing a massive amount of double handling of the same applicants forms: FLR the first year, ILR the following year, and then possible naturalisation/passport applications the year after that. Has the HO actually considered the work load involved with all this double handling, and how it will affect their already overworked and under-paid front line staff?

[nonothing]

How would they round us all up and make us re-apply ?? They can't even keep tabs on foreigners LEAVING PRISON!

because we're legal, we're easy tracked. the illegal immigrants never report to the police, but we do. we do everything the HO asks us to do, that's why we get punished.

I wonder what they're doing with all the spare time, given that ILR applications would be virtually zero at the moment!!

they're ploting another conspiracy towards us, surely.

[chibuya]

Employer's use of migrant labour in 04/06

Find this report very interesting.. paritcularly in Page 4 mentioned tha t

' work permits can be extended, and after a period of four years ( still fours years, haha) in emplyoment an indiddual has the right to apply for permitssion to line in the UK permanatly'

It is also interesting by mentioning the response from the employers about the sponsoership ( see page 78 ) ..


The report could be found as the link below,


http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0406.pdf

[bbdivo]

Hi All

You can listen to the proceedings at the standing committee yesterday by visiting:

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/ > This Week >Tuesday > Committees> HoC Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation to consider the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 1016)

Has anybody else listened to this? I listened to it last night and the arguments being put forward sounded really good (as if the politicians were really listening to us!) however at the end there was a vote and the 'Aye's won, am I right in saiyng thats the end of that? That is it wont be taken any further?

[John]

Yes, I listened to it. (The written transcript is still not available ... yet!)

I thought the opposition arguments were far superior to the Government twaddle. As regards the vote, it was always going to be the case that the Government would have a majority on the committee, so as said before the committee met, any vote was always going to be won by the Government.

But all they were voting on was to say that they had considered the issue. The passing of this resolution doesn't stop one of the main opposition parties taking it further. There are opposition days in the House of Commons, when the business is determined by the Tories or the LibDems. Hopefully a party will now use on some of their valuable time on this subject.

[miffedyankee]

My case so far:

• Arrived in UK on 28 August 2002 from the USA.
• I was offered a job in the IT field and the work permit was approved in November 2002.
• My passport was returned with 18 months leave to remain endorsed on 16 December 2002.
• In March 2003 my work permit was extended until 31 October 2007.

According to the new (unfair) rules for ILR, I should be able to apply for ILR at the end of 4 years, 11 months, which in my case will be 20 November 2007. In the event my work permit is extended in September/October, I will need to file for FLR at that time since my leave to remain will also expire. This will mean paying £335 as FLR fees (assuming the current fees) and then after 1 month forking out an additional £500 for the ILR! (Please correct me if I am wrong)

Will this be considered as hardship/inconvenience caused to me or will the HO simply expect me to pay this additional FLR/ILR fee?

[nonothing]

just to report on the outcome of the standing committee meeting.

The meeting was called by nick clegg the Lim Dem Home affairs spokesman, Damiem Green form the conservative are also behind the campaign.

Liam Byrne explain the official line and the opposition state the hardship case. and in the end there was a vote. as expected, the government win because the committee was set up in proportion to the government's majority. the campaign have lose a small battle, but just it is definitely NOT the end of the road.

There is a slight mis-conception in the proceeding of the meeting. The vote is not itself part of the law making process, as a secondary legislation, the change has already passed into law. If the vote was won, the government would have to come back with some kind of response, although not necessary change the law back. the lose of the vote only mean the protest of the opposition at this stage did not manage to make any impact.

The campaign will now focus on a more direct lobby with Liam Byrne. every one is now urged to write to him and John Reid directly.

The timing is now crucial. To make used of the impact of the demo, the campaign need to keep up the momentum in the next two weeks. Christine Lee will be meeting with Liam Byrne in the next 2 weeks and the House of Lord is following this at the same time.

Statement of Nick Clegg MP (Spokesperson of the Liberal Democrats)

"I called for the committee debate on this unjustified measure in order to hear the Government's side of the story, yet the minister remained unable to explain why this rule change must be applied retrospectively. It is totally unfair to disrupt the lives of thousands of people who reasonably assumed the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain applications would not simply be changed overnight. It is still not too late for the Minister to agree a simple amendment which would retain the Government's extension of the qualifying period but simply not apply it retrospectively. I very much hope the Minister will listen to the persuasive arguments that have been put to him by opposition parties and so many individuals whose lives will be turned upside down by this change."

[cas]

The only way this rule change is going to be reversed is if the people protesting have an affect on the number of votes for the elections , if it doesn't , the govt is going to set the rules in stone. It was quiet disappointing to have approx 70 people out at the protests when approx 100000 people are affected. The ones that donot particpate in this struggle shall not reap the benefits. We have to get more people out there and besides when that protest happen on Friday everyone on the WP/HSMP should have left their jobs and go to the protest , this should have had an affect on the companies and some of them being at standstill but companies and the british public would know what WP/HSMP people are doing for this country and themselves.
We need to unite in this and think that another protest should be done gathering the rest of the victims at least 500000 of us should protest. They can change the law to 5 years BUT to new applications only not the ones on the system already.

[aj77]

The campaign will now focus on a more direct lobby with Liam Byrne. every one is now urged to write to him and John Reid directly.The timing is now crucial

I totally agree with this.If we could be able to send 300 to 400 emails to these two persons.It can make some impact as CL is also going to arrange meeting with him.Right now everybody should send emails to Liam Bryne and John Reid so that they could be aware of our serious concerns about these changes.Letter could be;

Home Secretary/Immigration Minister,
Immigration and Nationality Directorate,
United Kingdom

Subject: Objection about retrospective implementation of 4-5 year rule change in immigration policy

Respected Sir,

As you would be aware that Parliament has passed the changes in Immigration rules(HC 1016)on 30/03/06.According to this all immigrants related to work related catagories i.e HSMP/Work permit holders etc can apply for ILR after 5 years now instead of 4 years.The implementation on this policy has been started from 03/04/06 retrospectively.

I don t have any objection on this policy as it might be in best interest of UK, my only objection is about it's retrospective implementation.

As we were told when we chose to enter this country that we would be qualified for ILR after 4 yrs if we satisfied all the criteria set forth. The retrospective implementation of this proposed change has a number of negative effects on the practical life of people who entered under the old rules and have faithfully satisfied the stringent rules for approval of Further Leave to Remain (ability to get mortgages on residential property, children's ability to study at UK universities, etc.), but the principle involved goes far beyond the practical problems.

We are neither refugees nor asylum seekers, but Highly Skilled people who felt we were entering into a contract by choosing to come here under the stated conditions at the time we applied. We are shocked and dismayed that, having kept our part of the bargain, we see the more powerful party changing the rules of the game. We understand the wish to change the rules to make you more in line with European norms, and to create a more coherent long-term immigration policy; but any such changes should in fairness only apply to new applicants, people who choose to migrate to the UK knowing what the (new) rules are. Retrospective changing of the rules is unfair, in civil contracts illegal, and to our minds not in keeping with what we imagined was the British sense of fair play.

As legal skilled immigrants in the UK, we came here because we like this country and its people. Once here, we become ambassadors for the UK in our countries of origin. We work hard and want to integrate into society, but this sudden retrospective change, without anything like proper consultation, makes us have doubts about the wisdom of our choice. We are convinced that other persons having the sort of skills that the Government itself says the country needs, and especially the most qualified amongst them (who definitely have a choice as to where to go), will think twice about signing on to a programme where the rules can be changed without notice, retrospectivelyy and without appeal. To alienate us may be an acceptable side effect to a desirable policy change; to alienate thousands of potential high-quality migrants bringing badly needed entrepreneurial and other skills would seem to be bad policy indeed.

For your convenience and to remind you Government assured us in old policy of HSMP that future changes wont affect us.Here are some extracts of old HSMP policy under which I applied and got HSMP visa.

24.9 Q: What if the scheme changes?

A: As with any immigration scheme we reserve the right to adapt some of the criteria or documentation associated
with the scheme and will inform you via our websites of any such changes. All applications will be treated on the
basis of the HSMP provisions at the time that they were submitted.

24.10 Q: I have already applied successfully under HSMP. How does the revised HSMP affect me?

A: Not at all. It is important to note that once you have entered under the programme you are in a category that has
an avenue to settlement. Those who have already entered under HSMP will be allowed to stay and apply for
settlement after four years qualifying residence regardless of these revisions to HSMP



26.5 Q: How long can I stay in the UK if I enter as a skilled migrant?

A: You will initially be given 12 months stay. If you want to remain in the UK under the HSMP, you should apply for
an extension of your stay in the last month before the expiry of your permission to stay in the UK. For further
information, please see “Extension of stay in the United Kingdom” section. You will be able to amalgamate leave
in other categories that lead to settlement for example, please see “Extension of stay in the United Kingdom
section.” towards the end of that period you can apply to remain in the same capacity for a further period of up
to three years.
After four years in the UK as a highly skilled migrant you can apply for settlement. The main criteria for
settlement will be that you have spent a continuous period of four years in the UK (except for trips abroad of
three months or less, totalling less than six months in the four year period) in a category leading to settlement
and that you continue to be economically active in the UK as a highly skilled migrant.

Breaking the promise by ignoring these committments, made by the Government, Government would set an example to the people that to implement your policies and to achieve desired results,one should not bother about the legal committments he made in the past if he has the power to do so.This is surely unfair and unjust and we hope that Government wont like to create such an image and would seriously think about removing retrospective element of these changes

I look forward for your reply.Thank you

Regards

Anyone could make amendments according to his situation but I would urge HSMP applicants to mention these committment ,Government made with us while entering in the UK.
(This could make an impact by realising that they are breaking the promise by ignoring the legal committments,they made with us.)

We need the email ID's of Liam Bryne and John Reid to send this letter to them.Can anybody provide their email ID's?

[sowhat]

The campaign will now focus on a more direct lobby with Liam Byrne. every one is now urged to write to him and John Reid directly.The timing is now crucial

I totally agree with this.If we could be able to send 300 to 400 emails to these two persons.It can make some impact as CL is also going to arrange meeting with him.Right now everybody should send emails to Liam Bryne and John Reid so that they could be aware of our serious concerns about these changes.Letter could be;

...

We need the email ID's of Liam Bryne and John Reid to send this letter to them.Can anybody provide their email ID's?

we can definitely do it, no question, but I suspect that they all will go to junk mail folder or at best to some low rank official who will reply with a standard letter. However, if we ask our MPs to do it again, then both John Reid and Liam Bryne will have to respond (though not personally I guess).

However, I am still waiting for Liam Bryne to respond to my MP who replied to me on May 24 writting that he had sent a letter to Liam Bryne regarding this matter.

[aj77]

We shouldn't give up.

I called for the committee debate on this unjustified measure in order to hear the Government's side of the story, yet the minister remained unable to explain why this rule change must be applied retrospectively

This shows that retrospective element has been discussed and Government couldn't jusify it.Earliar Government officials repeatedly said that it is not retrospective.
I am not disappointed by the outcome as both John and bbdico said that Opposition Leader's arguements were strong and still this matter can be discussed.We just need to continue this momentum as some Parliamentarians are seriously listening us and we should not give up the hope and continue our struggle till we will get the success.

[LRaj]

Dear All,

I have just joined the forum and would like to thank you for the effort in trying to resolve a very unfair and unjust issue.

I would like to also inform you that while browsing through other sites came across another HSMP network on bbc.co.uk. Just go on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/ ... ad=3000923

and you will find a series of messages on 'Against unfair retrospective immigration rules'.

I do not know if the 2 are linked but if not please let's join efforts for better results.

Hope this helps.

Best of luck.

[nonothing]

We need the email ID's of Liam Bryne and John Reid to send this letter to them.Can anybody provide their email ID's?

JR: reidj@parliament.uk
LB: byrnel@parliament.uk

[bani]

Hi All

You can listen to the proceedings at the standing committee yesterday by visiting:

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/ > This Week >Tuesday > Committees> HoC Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation to consider the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 1016)

Thanks for the link. I must say I am disappointed by Liam Byrne not really addressing the objections to the rule changes. It's like he doesn't understand the value/difference of ILR from our current status (WP, HSMP, etc.). To say that we would still be allowed in the country anyway so this law change doesn't really impact our lives is just callous and shortsighted. Especially after it was already pointed out that mortgages, tuition fees, even job offers depend on someone's immigration status. And I'm disappointed that he didn't address the point that we deserve reliable and stable laws (pointed out by the Sheffield MP). And as for encouraging social integration and the "greater degree of attachment to the UK" that the extra 12 months will provide, nothing discourages integration more than disillusionment. If the government can be this fickle, unreliable and inconsiderate of our lives, how can we be expected to trust it?

It's too bad there wasn't any more discussion and only 15 MPs were present. I fear that the opposition's good arguments might be forgotten (they certainly were avoided by Byrne) in further discussions.

[rooi_ding]

For all the newcomers please visit www.VBSI.org.uk

This will give you up dated news and yes Lraj the BBC link was written by a fonder of VBSI

to miffedyankie (love the name) yes this would be a hardship in my opinion and if you go to the link above you can see how to contact the relevent people eg: your MPand the VBSI

and always never give up

[miffedyankee]

I was just checking the new EDM tabled by Andrew Dismore.

It is worth noting that out of the 33 signatures, as many as 27 have been signed by Labour MPs. This does show that not all ruling party MPs are necessarily in favour of the change in rules. I am wondering which way this will go if there is a vote on the floor of the house?

If it comes to a vote in the house, will the labour chief whip be able to twist arms to get the transitional arrangements through. Can anyone post the email address of the chief whip please?

[nonothing]

The campaign will now focus on a more direct lobby with Liam Byrne. every one is now urged to write to him and John Reid directly.The timing is now crucial

I totally agree with this.If we could be able to send 300 to 400 emails to these two persons.It can make some impact as CL is also going to arrange meeting with him.Right now everybody should send emails to Liam Bryne and John Reid so that they could be aware of our serious concerns about these changes.Letter could be;

we can definitely do it, no question, but I suspect that they all will go to junk mail folder or at best to some low rank official who will reply with a standard letter. However, if we ask our MPs to do it again, then both John Reid and Liam Bryne will have to respond (though not personally I guess).

formal complaints to Immigration Minister Liam Byrne about the rule changes.

three versions of the text, best suited for:

affected persons
employers
persons not directly affected by the changes

please print them out and ask as many people as you can to sign a version that is most relevant. send the complaints directly to Liam Byrne's office in the Parliament as stated in the text. it's also a very good idea to send a copy to your local MP.

[sowhat]

The campaign will now focus on a more direct lobby with Liam Byrne. every one is now urged to write to him and John Reid directly.The timing is now crucial

I totally agree with this.If we could be able to send 300 to 400 emails to these two persons.It can make some impact as CL is also going to arrange meeting with him.Right now everybody should send emails to Liam Bryne and John Reid so that they could be aware of our serious concerns about these changes.Letter could be;

we can definitely do it, no question, but I suspect that they all will go to junk mail folder or at best to some low rank official who will reply with a standard letter. However, if we ask our MPs to do it again, then both John Reid and Liam Bryne will have to respond (though not personally I guess).

formal complaints to Immigration Minister Liam Byrne about the rule changes.

three versions of the text, best suited for:

affected persons
employers
persons not directly affected by the changes

please print them out and ask as many people as you can to sign a version that is most relevant. send the complaints directly to Liam Byrne's office in the Parliament as stated in the text. it's also a very good idea to send a copy to your local MP.

do you think that we should personalise the letters or send them a s they are? I personally think that a standard letter for a formal complain is fine. Also they usually reply with standard letters so why should we bother. However, I would like to check.

[seff_efrican]

do you think that we should personalise the letters or send them a s they are? I personally think that a standard letter for a formal complain is fine. Also they usually reply with standard letters so why should we bother. However, I would like to check.

have a look at http://www.writetothem.com/about-qa#formletters

Copied from this url:

Why shouldn't I copy and paste "form" letters?

We know your issue is important to you, but we've spoken to representatives — and if you are not a constituent, or you send a "copied and pasted" form letter, your message will go straight into the bin.

If you're a pressure group, please think about what you're doing. If you encourage all your members to write to the same representative, you will not show that representative the depth of support for your issue. We now block large form letter campaigns sent to individuals, but even if we did let through your mail, we know from experience that you'll simply have used up a few sheets of tax-funded paper, and irritated an underpaid secretary or researcher. And if you encourage your supporters to all send the same rote letter to different representatives, the recipients will just assume you have a nasty little man with a computer and a list of addresses blasting them out from your office. Then they'll ignore you, wheras if you'd asked people to write to their own representatives in their own words, you'd be ahead of the game.

Still not convinced? Here's a quote from a Parliamentary researcher, whose job is to make the MP he/she works for as accessible as possible (such people are the hidden gems of our democracy):

MPs rather naturally take a sudden influx of identical or similar messages with a large pinch of salt, since they know that what they are seeing is stuff from a minority of constituents who are either impassioned/neurotic about the topic concerned or who are easily gulled into agreeing with some plausible story and sending the message, since it takes minimum effort to do so.

Given a daily mailbag of (say) 50 individual messages from individual constituents, on a wide range of topics, when the mailbag suddenly rises to 100 a day, 50 of which are much the same as each other, the representative has no way at all of knowing whether the message concerned is representative of opinion in the constituency.

All he or she knows is that 50 constituents have been persuaded to mail them about 'topic X'. Much more notice is taken of trends within the regular flow of messages from clearly identified constituents. If in a month 50 people write in different ways and through different routes with similar views on a subject, this is much more likely to raise the profile of the topic with the MP.

So please don't copy and paste the same message as everyone else. And don't encourage others to do so. It's worse than useless as we'll automatically stop your messages before they get through. Ask people to write in their own words. If they care enough about your issue, they'll do so.

[nonothing]

I totally agree with this.If we could be able to send 300 to 400 emails to these two persons.It can make some impact as CL is also going to arrange meeting with him.Right now everybody should send emails to Liam Bryne and John Reid so that they could be aware of our serious concerns about these changes.Letter could be;

we can definitely do it, no question, but I suspect that they all will go to junk mail folder or at best to some low rank official who will reply with a standard letter. However, if we ask our MPs to do it again, then both John Reid and Liam Bryne will have to respond (though not personally I guess).

formal complaints to Immigration Minister Liam Byrne about the rule changes.

three versions of the text, best suited for:

affected persons
employers
persons not directly affected by the changes

please print them out and ask as many people as you can to sign a version that is most relevant. send the complaints directly to Liam Byrne's office in the Parliament as stated in the text. it's also a very good idea to send a copy to your local MP.

do you think that we should personalise the letters or send them a s they are? I personally think that a standard letter for a formal complain is fine. Also they usually reply with standard letters so why should we bother. However, I would like to check.

i very much share your point. if we can personalise the letter, that'd be ideal. but if we don't have time to do so, we can just send the identical one and see if it works. it's better than nothing.

i would also like to call for everyone keeping in touch with your MP and trying to set up a meeting with them. if they do show some support, urge them to take further actions rather than just pass the letter to the HO or sign the EDMs.

the further actions are including:
raise the issue to LB/JR personally;
spread the information and try to get more support among their fellow MPs;
try to set up a debate in the commons;
...

[nonothing]

Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 620s01.htm