5 years for ILR rule implemented

[John]

Does that mean I'm going to have a problem getting married to my girlfriend

A problem? Depends upon your definition! You are certainly going to need to apply for a CoA. Armed with that any problem, if you define needing to apply for CoA as a problem, goes away.

This aint gonna be no sham marriage or whatever they call it at the HO.

Totally accepted, but in the past, prior to these regulations coming in, there were failed asylum seekers etc marrying in particular non-UK EEA Citizens and then applying for Residence Permits based upon the marriage. Not saying I agree with these regulations but totally understand why the Government introduced this legislation.

You have a valid visa, with at least three months left on it. You should not encounter a problem getting a CoA.

It is always open to you to marry outside the UK, for example in your beloved's country!

[sowhat]

please note that taking the case into court makes sense only for those who were two years on a working visa. My guess that it would take a couple of years before the decision is made. So people who were here for 3-4 years will get ILR anyway by that time.

[jayj]

John

What is CoA? Thanks:)

[jayj]

Apologies...I know what's CoA ))) While on this what are the requirements for CoA?

Much appreciated.

[sowhat]

I've got my extension of HSMP today for next 3 years. However, my daughter's application is still under consideration, she's over 18.

Also I got a reply from my MP with the attached letter from the Home Office. Nothing new. They now deny that there is any restospective aspect in the changes. The usual demagogy. Things like this:

We have noted that there are many different uses of the word 'retrospective' in this content...

The information provided in the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme booklet reflected the immigration rules in force at the time it was published. It is a simple statement of the law as it was then, and it cannot be construed as a personal undertaking with regard to your constituent...

I appreciate that after reading the Highly Skilled Migrant material your constituent did expect to obtain settlement within that period...

However, the main reason for this changes is clearly stated in the paragraph below (I highlighted it).

I can understand the frustration theat people feel at this, and your constituent's wish that it should only apply to people who are arriving in the UK after the change. This, though, would mean that the change would not really have an effect until 2011, which would not be desirable.

So what is next? Should I send another letter to my MP? As I said earlier I do not think that any court action will do me any good as the decision will likely be reached after I spend 5 years here.

[RobinLondon]

I've always been confused by this term "desirable" with regards to this issue. What does this mean? If the purpose of this change is to encourage attachment to the UK, I must say that it's inadvertently having an opposite effect. Well, for me at least.

Secondly, it seems that no one in Government is mentioning the financial aspect of this change. It's as if the subject of filthy lucre is to be avoided at all cost. The reality is that the Home Office is money-spinning, getting between £335 and £500 more per migrant than they previously had budgeted. It's funny that Mr Clegg didn't bring up *that* issue in committee, but as I said, maybe this is something that nobody wishes to acknowledge.

Like sowhat, I really don't have recourse to a court case in that my original visa expires in a few months, so there's little that I can do. Seriously, this whole thing makes me feel like a beaten dog. If I end up remaining in this country, I most certainly will be ambivalent in the purest sense of the word during any naturalisation ceremony.

[tobiashomer]

I've got my extension of HSMP today for next 3 years. However, my daughter's application is still under consideration, she's over 18.

surely your daughter was under 18 when you entered under HSMP? how can they "consider" her any differently from you? that has me worried! (my son in same position and we must apply for that fatal extra year in January)

This, though, would mean that the change would not really have an effect until 2011, which would not be desirable.

Why can't they get it straight: the few "grandfathered" cases like us will not mean that their new scheme does not "really have an effect" until 2011; it means that the VERY LAST of the migrants governed by the transitional arrangements (in our dreams) would achieve (or not) ILR in that year, but the new rules would have a huge effect starting on 3 April 2006: ALL new applicants are subject to them, while the old entrants will gradually fade from the scene over the next few years. This is pure sophistry--or the confused product of a confused mind. I think they think we are stupid and few. Let's prove them wrong if we can!

[sowhat]

surely your daughter was under 18 when you entered under HSMP? how can they "consider" her any differently from you? that has me worried! (my son in same position and we must apply for that fatal extra year in January)

my application was considered in Sheffielf while my daughter's in Croydon. That's what I has been told. When I asked when we could expect the decision the answer was 14 weeks.

[Miss Oceania]

I've always been confused by this term "desirable" with regards to this issue. What does this mean? If the purpose of this change is to encourage attachment to the UK, I must say that it's inadvertently having an opposite effect. Well, for me at least.

Secondly, it seems that no one in Government is mentioning the financial aspect of this change. It's as if the subject of filthy lucre is to be avoided at all cost. The reality is that the Home Office is money-spinning, getting between £335 and £500 more per migrant than they previously had budgeted. It's funny that Mr Clegg didn't bring up *that* issue in committee, but as I said, maybe this is something that nobody wishes to acknowledge.

Like sowhat, I really don't have recourse to a court case in that my original visa expires in a few months, so there's little that I can do. Seriously, this whole thing makes me feel like a beaten dog. If I end up remaining in this country, I most certainly will be ambivalent in the purest sense of the word during any naturalisation ceremony.

I agree with pretty much all of that, and I am in the same position with my visa expiring in two months time. My feelings right now are that I am begrudgingly going to do the extra year, but my bitterness towards the government for how they have gone about this whole thing will probably still be there when I apply for citizenship. And any confidence I may have had in the immigration system of this country has been well and truely shot to pieces, and I won't be at all surprised when they change the rules yet again in the near future.

[aj77]

It would be better if CL could contact to Lib Dem Leaders and ask them about their future strategy to discuss this matter in the parliament.
In the meantime, we should try to discuss this matter with our lawers and post the fedback on the board .It would be better if we could discuss the possible outcome if we go against HO in the court.The time duraton and money we required for this purpose would be of great importance too.
We know that this would take time and for some members,it might not be in their interest to go to court,but it,s not the matter of any single individual but to stop government from doing unjust and unfair things to legal hardworking persons as a whole.
We need to make a proper strategy and will have to discuss every aspect related to this action.Atleast we can start discussing every aspect related to this and not only the financial aspect.
I also noticed that retrospective element might not be enough for court action as this principle can be broken in certain circumstances acording to standing committee's discussion,though Government couldn't provide any genuine reason for this yet.But with the same time we are also getting the feeing that Government is not ready to listen us even though our concerns would be genuine.Anybody can assess through standing committee's discussion that opposition parties argued more convincingly than Government offcials ,even then we couldn't see any change in Government's stance.Now it's the time to discuss every aspect related to court action.

[aj77]

We have noted that there are many different uses of the word 'retrospective' in this content...

The information provided in the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme booklet reflected the immigration rules in force at the time it was published. It is a simple statement of the law as it was then, and it cannot be construed as a personal undertaking with regard to your constituent...

I appreciate that after reading the Highly Skilled Migrant material your constituent did expect to obtain settlement within that period

But there were some committments and assurances regarding future in that booklet too, related to stability of that existing policy that future changes wont affect us.

[timefactor]

http://www.workingintheuk.gov.uk/workin ... rkers.html?

still says:--

If you have worked in the United Kingdom for four years and we have given you permission to stay for an indefinite period, you can take any job without our permission.

[sowhat]

http://www.workingintheuk.gov.uk/workin ... rkers.html?

still says:--

If you have worked in the United Kingdom for four years and we have given you permission to stay for an indefinite period, you can take any job without our permission.

they are right, they just won't give this permission to stay indefinitely after 4 years

[BadPaul]

Hi all,

Are we going to do something or spend another few months talking?

Let's get organized on:

1. Who is contacting the Opposition Shadow Immigration ministers to talk about a potential strategy to change the ruling through the parliamentary lobbying?

2. Who is going to contact the law firms to assess the viability of our case and also how long is it going to take (weeks, months, a year)?


BR,

Bad Paul

[aj77]

It would be helpful if CL could contact to supportive Parlamentarians to discuss with them about their future strategy to support our case.


For the legal action:

1)Retrospective changes.Though Goernment still has the same stance that these canges are not retrospective.But we can see during standing committee's discussion that Government and opposition Parties understand that these changes are retrospective and Government need to give genuine reason for doing this.So I think we have sufficient arguements to convince that these changes are retrospective.But Parliament is supreeme and can break this principle under special circmstances.

2)Legitimate Expctations When you enter the country.This also can be argued.

3)Committments and assurances Government gave us while entering the country

4)unjust an unfair.Everybody has the consensus.Does it worth any value in court to win case?

5)Hardship cases .This matters but for vary from individual to individual.

6) Possibe negative outcomes and trends Government would set by implementing this.Can this become decisive factor for oucome of the case?

any other possible point to argue?

[timefactor]

my god!

already 4 months gone! just another year

[rooi_ding]

11 months to go maybe they were right what's in a year (NOT)

[bani]

I've always been confused by this term "desirable" with regards to this issue. What does this mean? If the purpose of this change is to encourage attachment to the UK, I must say that it's inadvertently having an opposite effect. Well, for me at least.

Secondly, it seems that no one in Government is mentioning the financial aspect of this change. It's as if the subject of filthy lucre is to be avoided at all cost. The reality is that the Home Office is money-spinning, getting between £335 and £500 more per migrant than they previously had budgeted. It's funny that Mr Clegg didn't bring up *that* issue in committee, but as I said, maybe this is something that nobody wishes to acknowledge.

Like sowhat, I really don't have recourse to a court case in that my original visa expires in a few months, so there's little that I can do. Seriously, this whole thing makes me feel like a beaten dog. If I end up remaining in this country, I most certainly will be ambivalent in the purest sense of the word during any naturalisation ceremony.

I agree with pretty much all of that, and I am in the same position with my visa expiring in two months time. My feelings right now are that I am begrudgingly going to do the extra year, but my bitterness towards the government for how they have gone about this whole thing will probably still be there when I apply for citizenship. And any confidence I may have had in the immigration system of this country has been well and truely shot to pieces, and I won't be at all surprised when they change the rules yet again in the near future.

I feel exactly the same way. Though I am a long way away from ILR, I can just see myself going through the motions to get it and citizenship when I am eligible. But that sense of actually belonging and wanting to be part of this nation has eroded a lot. To be honest, I will probably go through the process because (1) I have a job here I like anyway, so I am staying, (2) I'm tired of applying for visas on my passport and a Brit passport will solve this, (3) Shortly after citizenship, I'll probably be out of here because that will give me the right to live and work in any other EU country. I won't feel that I owe the UK anything since they would have taken thousands of pounds from me at that point.

[rooi_ding]

ditto the above

[likewise]

what's the next action from vbsi then?

[tobiashomer]

Shortly after citizenship, I'll probably be out of here because that will give me the right to live and work in any other EU country. I won't feel that I owe the UK anything since they would have taken thousands of pounds from me at that point.

I fully sympathise, but would not advise trumpeting that point of view as it could be used to justify what they are doing in accordance with one unspoken goal: to weed out those migrants who are not really committed to this country, "commitment" being defined as willingness to accept without complaint the most grotesquely unfair treatment.

That's why as I have argued before we should adopt the stance of a party to a contract who sees the other party not standing by its commitments, arguing from a point of view of logic, rules and law rather than emotion (however justified); in particular, I think we should avoid the insulting language aimed at the HO I have seen in some letters/posts/circulars. Expressing our feelings in strong language may make us feel better but it is likely to be counter-productive ("if they have such a good case why don't they go to court rather than shouting abuse?").

At the end of the day (that is, very soon now) the only way this will be changed is in court: the bureaucrats, even Mr Byrne and the new crowd, have dug themselves in ("removing retrospectivity is not desirable", how can you argue with that?); this is below the radar threshold of the powerful, it is not dramatic enough for public opinion to make significant noise, and there is no other recourse left. If, indeed, there is even that recourse: I have seen the question asked several times as to whether a reliable law firm has opined on the receivability of our complaint, but not seen anything in reply. Does anyone know?

[olisun]

Shortly after citizenship, I'll probably be out of here because that will give me the right to live and work in any other EU country. I won't feel that I owe the UK anything since they would have taken thousands of pounds from me at that point.

I fully sympathise, but would not advise trumpeting that point of view as it could be used to justify what they are doing in accordance with one unspoken goal: to weed out those migrants who are not really committed to this country, "commitment" being defined as willingness to accept without complaint the most grotesquely unfair treatment.

whether a reliable law firm has opined on the receivability of our complaint, but not seen anything in reply.

Totally agreed.....

[timefactor]

who will take initiative? that's the issue here. no point in discussing forward for another 55 pages.

we need to find a responsible person / firm, who can take the responsibility of legal case.

Totally agreed.....

[slor]

Hi all. One quick point that there is some disinformation out there – I got a letter from the Home Office after my complaint that they were not applying directive 2003/109/EC correctly (such as counting 1/2 years as a student). Their reply was that they were not applying directive 2003/109/EC to the immigration rules, but 2004/38/EC! (This directive only applies to EU citizens living in another member state and states that they must be given permanent residency after 5 years.) So, why is Mr. Clegg talking about 2003/109/EC at all, and why did not Mr. Byrne correct him?

[jayj]

Chaps,

We need to identify the key people/Solicitors that have the experience of dealing with the HO and taking them to court on the basis of this rule change.
I have checked with VBSI, seem likes no activities are kicking off except for letters to MP's which is not going to have an impact anymore. We need to take them to court, have this in the media , news , televised all over the UK, EU and SA, AUS,NZ,USA showing the unjust rules implemented. We say implement the rules to 5 years BUT not to people already on the system. Surely we can arrange a meeting time at a venue, discuss options , solicitors and treat this matter with highest priority. We are professionals here, doctors, lawyers,engineers etc...if we trun a blind eye and just discuss this over here and not take it to the next step , we merely going to be heard by HO and that's where is stops...all they would say is we have given them an opportunity to voice their greviences and we can hear them but will do nothing about it! Court ruling is the best way forward with this one I say. We have agood case and can triumph in this if we act now!
The govt should not allow itself to be sidetracked and make unfair rules ,but they make mistakes don't they , they need assistance from us to put this straight and bring them back on track to making fair decisions
I'm sure the british public will be annoyed at the way HO has passed the rule change....disgraceful...that's what most of the British say that I've spoken to....absolute disgrace to HO.

So lets get things going!

Cheers