5 years for ILR rule implemented

Post by **Administrator** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:25 am

I am asking what the corporate policy at WorkPermit.com is on this.

However, please note that when posting news taken from other locations, international copyright conventions require that the source of the document be included. The original author(s) must be identified to comply with fair-use laws.

We do not encourage linking to other sites in this forum as part of our no-advertisements policy.

In the case of legitimate news, until further notice, please include the exact URL and and copyright notice. Such as this example :

UK Citizenship and children out of wedlock
05 July 2006

After a long wait The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provision relating to children of unmarried British fathers came into effect on 1 July 2006.

The Government claims that this will bring equality under the law so that children of unmarried British fathers will be treated the same way as children of British mothers. However, there is still some unfairness in the provisions as this will only apply to children born on or after 1 July 2006.

If the child was born before 1 July 2006 to a British father and a non-British mother where they are not married the child does not automatically gain British citizenship. Either the parents will need to get married before the child's eighteenth birthday so making the child "legitimate" and so giving the child an automatic right to citizenship, or an application will need to be made for discretionary registration of the child as a British citizen. It is hoped that discretionary registration which can obviously be refused will be made even easier in cases where the child claims UK citizenship based on having a British father.

The British Nationality (Proof of Paternity) Regulations in 2006 require that as proof of the right to UK citizenship the British father must be named in the birth certificate within one year of the child's birth. In certain cases further evidence may be required to show paternity. For example there may be a requirement to have a DNA test report.

----
Copyright© 2006 Workpermit.com - All rights reserved.
http://workpermit.com/news/2006_07_05/u ... edlock.htm

If you are posting part of it, please make a note that it is an excerpt. Do not post the full text of long articles unless the entire text is relevent.

Trying to use this suggestion as a way to circumvent our no-advertising policy will be discouraged.

It is by luck that I happen to be one of the authors of this news release.

Thank you for your time,

The Admin

ssi · Post by **ssi** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:44 am

Administrator wrote:I am asking what the corporate policy at WorkPermit.com is on this.

I subscribe to WorkPermit.com email newsletter, and this is how I learnt about the ILR45 change back in March. But a story about opposition to it and the VBSI has never been reported there. Is it a part of the corporate policy? Why not report it, as the Times and the BBC did? Many people still do not know about it.

supertiger · Post by **supertiger** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:46 am

Just got an email from my father that last night CCTV 4 (China Central Television international channel) reported the demo on 16 Jun and said many MPs are supporting us... this is a mainstream television in China and people here can also see it with cable and all over the world.

hvac2006 · Post by **hvac2006** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:52 am

Hi all
Today i received letter from my MP Mike Wood in which he inclosed reply of Mr Joan Ryan Mp, home offoce. It is quite detailed letter of about three pages in which they replied some of our observation regarding recent changes. It is almost same as allready posted on the site the only difference is that it dont seems to be auto reply type they replied it point by point, like how they dont think it is not retospective.The home office think that this mean that change will not really have effect untill 2011 which would not be desireable. They also think that "information provided in HSMP booklet refelected the immigration rules inforce at the time it was published. It was a simple statement of the law as it was than, and it cannot be construed as a personnel undertaking with regards to your constituents. Similarly, setting out the relevant rules in a booklet does not mean that government cannot change those rules in the paper manner at a later date. It appears that by labelling it as a scheme the effect has been created in some quarters that this is an arrangement apart from the immigration rules that cannot be changed further, and atleast at one point this is not made sufficiently clear". Than they repeatsame about this that the changes to settlement------, they also explain the payment of tuttion fee procedure etc. Net outcome is zero. I can print full letter or can fax letter if it is useful for any legal action or any other purpose.

Post by **Administrator** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:25 am

ssi wrote:I subscribe to WorkPermit.com email newsletter

Thank you! I hope it is a valuable resource.
http://workpermit.com/news/newsletter_archive/

ssi wrote:this is how I learnt about the ILR45 change back in March. But a story about opposition to it and the VBSI has never been reported there. Is it a part of the corporate policy? Why not report it, as the Times and the BBC did? Many people still do not know about it.

Our main focus is to report and explain how people may obtain visas and work permits. As a rule, our reporting focuses on factual policy as it exists, or discusses changes that are imminent.

We try not to report on changes that are proposed outside of the legislative process. We also try to strip out language expressing strong opinions and distill such down to factually represented viewpoints.

Special interest and advocacy groups are generally not listed specifically so as to not be considered as supporting or advocating them or their viewpoints. BAPIO and VBSI, for example, have had their opposing views represented in news releases at WorkPermit.com, but as a part of the entire policy explanation.

News organizations (such as BBC) have the luxury of reporting on news events as they determine. They may also include or exclude anything they wish as per their overall agenda(s), upon which our only opinion is that freedom of speech and reporting is a good thing.

WorkPermit focuses specifically on actual policy. Our agenda is to assist people in migration between all countries and economic regions of the world for a variety of reasons. We do not, as a normal rule, engage in lobbying or advocacy efforts to affect the policy or legislation of any government.

Several of our employees are assigned to monitoring this board; it is one of the reasons why we host and maintain this board. It is a resource for the entire immigrant/migrant community of the world as much as it is a resource for our own business interests.

If there is news we can publish, we are interested in seeing mention of it. Please include links to sources so we may investigate them thoroughly, if you wish to post here.

We will not, however, report on special interest rhetoric or organized protests or similar such items. Not normally, anyway. If such become unavoidable news and actually affect policy, that would be a different factor to consider.

News on legal cases as they progress and receive judgement, policy changes, legislation as it is introduced and debated and voted upon ... in all countries ... these are all news items we can report on.

Thank you,

The Admin

ssi · Post by **ssi** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 1:25 pm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 91,00.html
Who wants the Abolition of Parliament Bill?

by David Howarth (LibDem MP for Cambridge)

Hardly anyone has noticed, but British democracy is sleepwalking into a sinister world of ministerial power

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

It is not off the topic here, but it is relevant to many other issues too.

a11 · Post by **a11** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 3:50 pm

hvac2006 wrote:Today i received letter from my MP Mike Wood

Oh well, I suppose it's still much better than nothing ))
I t'be great if you could scan the letter and send to msp.vbsi at gmail.com. I will then forward it to the rest of VBSI.
Thanks!

RobinLondon · Post by **RobinLondon** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:47 pm

hvac2006, I think you raise an interesting point about promises made by Government and government ministers. The letter that you received suggests that general pamphlets may not be construed as forming a promise to the potential HSMP or WP migrant. However, does my letter from the former Home Secretary Charles Clarke count as the same thing?

I would argue that Mr Clarke made a promise to me in May 2005 when he said that I could apply for ILR at the end of my current visa in June 2007. This is the argument that I am going to make. My fear is that, much like your letter from the HO stated, those in power will interpret Mr Clarke's words as a simple statement of the rules in force at that time, rather than as an intent to create expectations.

ssi · Post by **ssi** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:18 pm

ssi wrote:
rooi_ding wrote:There is a similar organization in the states called the VSI
Is this the one: http://immigrationvoice.org/ ?

Hello,

Thank you for contacting us with this information. We will go ahead and post this information on our website and
circulate this information in the news media in US.

I went through your website which provides excellent information about your effort. It seems that your organization is
doing similar work in UK as Immigration Voice is doing in US. We would be happy to assist you in anyway we could. Please
feel free to send us more information that you would like to be circulated in the high skilled community and the press in
US.

Warm Regards,

Immigration Voice
www.immigrationvoice.org
(850) 294-3556

To: <info@immigrationvoice.org>
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 5:19 AM
Subject: Voice of Britain's Skilled Immigrants

>
> Dear Friends,
>
> Voice of Britain's Skilled Immigrants is planning a legal action
> against recently introduced retroactive changes to the UK Immigration rules.
>
> Please see http://www.vbsi.org.uk/
> for more information.
>
> Could you please help spread the word in the American media?
>
> This would be a huge help to skilled migrants in the "51st state".
>
> Cordially,
>

garichd · Post by **garichd** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:41 pm

ssi wrote:
ssi wrote:
rooi_ding wrote:There is a similar organization in the states called the VSI
Is this the one: http://immigrationvoice.org/ ?
Hello,

Thank you for contacting us with this information. We will go ahead and post this information on our website and
circulate this information in the news media in US.

I went through your website which provides excellent information about your effort. It seems that your organization is
doing similar work in UK as Immigration Voice is doing in US. We would be happy to assist you in anyway we could. Please
feel free to send us more information that you would like to be circulated in the high skilled community and the press in
US.

Warm Regards,

Immigration Voice
www.immigrationvoice.org
(850) 294-3556

To: <info@immigrationvoice.org>
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 5:19 AM
Subject: Voice of Britain's Skilled Immigrants

>
> Dear Friends,
>
> Voice of Britain's Skilled Immigrants is planning a legal action
> against recently introduced retroactive changes to the UK Immigration rules.
>
> Please see http://www.vbsi.org.uk/
> for more information.
>
> Could you please help spread the word in the American media?
>
> This would be a huge help to skilled migrants in the "51st state".
>
> Cordially,
>

Good Work SSI..

May I suggest one more thing. In order to create awareness we should start posting on Community forums..

For example I am Indian and usualy visit Lots of Websites/Forums which provide Indian Bollywood entartainment.
I will post about our campagin there and try to direct traffic to VBSI.

Any more thoughts....

ssi · Post by **ssi** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:50 pm

garichd wrote: Any more thoughts....

I posted this here :
http://vbsi.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46

Everyone agrees that raising public awareness is a priority.

I suggest to use the pre-IT method:

Produce a leaflet stating :

the problem

the intended course of action

sources of information (including the VBSI site)

Everyone will be able to download, print and post it
at companies/organisations with high potential population of people affected by the ILR45 change.

Are there any good artists/designers?

supertiger · Post by **supertiger** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:18 pm

Good idea and effort ssi, to seek assistance from USA.

ssi wrote:
ssi wrote:
rooi_ding wrote:There is a similar organization in the states called the VSI
Is this the one: http://immigrationvoice.org/ ?
Hello,

Thank you for contacting us with this information. We will go ahead and post this information on our website and
circulate this information in the news media in US.

I went through your website which provides excellent information about your effort. It seems that your organization is
doing similar work in UK as Immigration Voice is doing in US. We would be happy to assist you in anyway we could. Please
feel free to send us more information that you would like to be circulated in the high skilled community and the press in
US.

Warm Regards,

Immigration Voice
www.immigrationvoice.org
(850) 294-3556

To: <info@immigrationvoice.org>
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 5:19 AM
Subject: Voice of Britain's Skilled Immigrants

>
> Dear Friends,
>
> Voice of Britain's Skilled Immigrants is planning a legal action
> against recently introduced retroactive changes to the UK Immigration rules.
>
> Please see http://www.vbsi.org.uk/
> for more information.
>
> Could you please help spread the word in the American media?
>
> This would be a huge help to skilled migrants in the "51st state".
>
> Cordially,
>

aj77 · Post by **aj77** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:09 pm

In the letter hvac2006 received from HO ,HO fficial said

They also think that "information provided in HSMP booklet refelected the immigration rules inforce at the time it was published. It was a simple statement of the law as it was than, and it cannot be construed as a personnel undertaking with regards to your constituents. Similarly, setting out the relevant rules in a booklet does not mean that government cannot change those rules in the paper manner at a later date. It appears that by labelling it as a scheme the effect has been created in some quarters that this is an arrangement apart from the immigration rules that cannot be changed further, and atleast at one point this is not made sufficiently clear".

This shows that HO has now prepared proper reply of our concerns instead of sending standard reply,still I don't agree with whatever has been said in his letter as these people interpreted the statements according to their own wishes.Only court can decide that if any committments were being made on official website of HO should be honoured or not as many of us trusted on these committments and sold all their property,resigned from their well paid jobs and moved to the new country,suffered for couple of years doing odd jobs,making themselves familiar with the new surrounding and atmosphere and once they survived successfully,they have been told that it was not a promise and their future plans can be destroyed at any time.
Still waiting for the feedback from Law firms about our case's success.Still I believe our case is very strong and we can win.We need proper planning for legal action.
It would be interesting to see the exact wording of full letter and whether this is same reply as sowhat received or it's different than that letter.

aj77 · Post by **aj77** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:33 pm

HO official said,

setting out the relevant rules in a booklet does not mean that government cannot change those rules in the paper manner at a later date

We never said that Government can not change the rule at a later date,but Gvernment can not implement new rules on the people who came under previous policy.
e.g Once the qualifying points for hsmp applicant were 75, they reduced those to 65,added 10 points for spouse qualification.This criteria has been implemented to new applicants not to the ones who has been rejected or accepted under old policy.
If selection criteria was same which was published on HO website then how can they deny the future committments they published on official website of HO.Otherwise what was the purpose of publishing those future committments on official HO website then.

ssi · Post by **ssi** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:49 pm

ssi wrote:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 91,00.html
Who wants the Abolition of Parliament Bill?

It appears that the Labour Government has much more grandiose plans than "simply ask" legal migrants to "wait another year" - it wants to abolish this nuisance, the Parliament :

http://www.saveparliament.org.uk/

The Government is testing its "right to change the rules" at will and without proper deliberation process on us.

hvac2006 · Post by **hvac2006** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:28 pm

a11 wrote:
hvac2006 wrote:Today i received letter from my MP Mike Wood
Oh well, I suppose it's still much better than nothing ))
I t'be great if you could scan the letter and send to msp.vbsi at gmail.com. I will then forward it to the rest of VBSI.
Thanks!

Unfortunately i left letter in my office so I am not able to send scanned copy today however i will send copy on monday so everybody can see exact wording as it is quite detailed letter and few other points are also discussed in it.
_________________

a11 · Post by **a11** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:50 pm

Funny enough, today I received a letter from the same lady Joan Ryan MP forwarded to me by my local MP Andrew Slaughter. It's only 1 page long and does not look like a copy-paste either. The take-home message of her response is that a) the legislation is not retrospective and b) that HO is not responsible for banks not giving us good mortgage deals and universities charging our children overseas fees. It seems that this lady, while she is still keen to write original responses to people (she only started in her new role on May the 8th this year), should be considered one of the main targets of the campaign.

hvac2006 · Post by **hvac2006** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:16 am

a11 wrote:
hvac2006 wrote:Today i received letter from my MP Mike Wood
Oh well, I suppose it's still much better than nothing ))
I t'be great if you could scan the letter and send to msp.vbsi at gmail.com. I will then forward it to the rest of VBSI.
Thanks!

a11
I think some spelling is wrong in this address " msp.vbsi@gmail.com" I cannot send anything to this adress please can u confirm it again or any mean to send it

hvac2006 · Post by **hvac2006** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:41 am

hvac2006 wrote:
a11 wrote:
hvac2006 wrote:Today i received letter from my MP Mike Wood
Oh well, I suppose it's still much better than nothing ))
I t'be great if you could scan the letter and send to msp.vbsi at gmail.com. I will then forward it to the rest of VBSI.
Thanks!
a11
I think some spelling is wrong in this address " msp.vbsi@gmail.com" I cannot send anything to this adress please can u confirm it again or any mean to send it

Now it is dispatched.

BadPaul · Post by **BadPaul** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:05 am

Dear friends,

As promised I am posting the response I have received from the law firm with regards to a potential case against the HO.

I am sorry for the delay but I was waiting for their permission to post the response on this forum.

This answers most of our questions ( is there a chance to win, how much does it cost, how long is it going to take ).

I have selected from their response the points that interests us the most, please find it below :

" Paul

- We would certainly like to work with the VBSI organisation. Reviewing the judicial review procedural rules, however, this is unlikely to be successful. When challenging a decision of the Government, any judicial review case must be brought promptly and, at the very least, within three months of that decision being implemented. With respect to the change in criteria for indefinite leave to remain, this would have been 3 July 2006

BadPaul's comments : they didn't know at the time they responded that someone already took the matter to the High Court for a Judicial Review of the new rules ! So there is a case submitted before the deadline.

- "As a minimum, the full judicial review process could cost approximately £20,000 in barrister fees alone if the case is lost because the individual concerned could be liable for the Home Office's fees. There would also be the additional cost of moving through the appeal process "

- " it is difficult to estimate the timing involved but currently it is taking four to five months to get an initial determination (ie permission to proceed with the judicial review) and a further eight months for a full decision"

BadPaul's comments : think about HO's reaction to doctors' case. That is also a judicial review and the HO decided that is better to change the rules than defend their case ( and potentially loose ).

My personal view is that we should go ahead and all of us should unite and support the court case.

Let me know what do you think.

Best regards,

Paul

supertiger · Post by **supertiger** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:14 am

I agree with you badpaul, i have tried to contact Stephen Kong but no response from him. I am hoping to find out what's happening at his end...

chibuya · Post by **chibuya** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:53 pm

Some suggestions in relating to Paul's post

1 I support legal actions and think the most important is to find a ' ground' to sue the HO. I doubt if the 3 months time limits is very strict.

2 Should we ask for quote from different lay firms? And put some information here. I think there are so many of us - if some of us make some intitial calls- it could be some good start to get ideas about fees- just like Paul did - it is very nice

3 Should we keep on sending letters to MPs and Liam B himself- particular focusing on enquiry if ' people already in the country have to go through the 5 pionts systems to re-apply for their WP/HSMP ? ' And make the piont that this is not welcomed and disappoved by us!

Also we could email ISAUK to express the concerns , particularly I think it is a good chance to do so before the 24th July conference. Maybe we could find out who is going and try to put our concerns to them for any quesiton time or so to ask Laim B face to face!!

I am not trying to shift the focus or anything - I just feel that we could do the two things together

- one route- legal actions against the 4 to 5 changes
- the other route- make nioses against any future proposed changes against us!

cantab · Post by **cantab** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:24 pm

also, where shall i send my email so that i am contactable should we decide to pursue the legal case?
i can contribute £200.

BadPaul · Post by **BadPaul** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:44 pm

Chibuya,

I am afraid the 3 months time limit is very strict, I have checked from 2 sources.

But we are not being forced to dispute the 3 months period, as I believe there is a judicial review request already.

ssi · Post by **ssi** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:53 pm

I received a bulk reply to my/our bulk letter to L. Byrne (signied by Ms J Dulieu, Correspondence Team).
It repeats, word for word, previous rebukes signed by different HO officials. In essence:
* It is not desirable to let us get ILR according to the old rules.
What is the object of their desires is still unclear. Does anyone know when CL has this long awaited meeting with the Immigration minister? Hope the court-action preparation is at full swing. On standby to send donation and to do more...

Full text:

Home Office
Immigration and Nationality Directorate
Lunar House, 40 Wellesley Road, Croydon, CR9 2BY
General Enquiry Line - 0870 606 7766

Date: 06/07/2006

Dear XXX

Thank you for your letter of 26/06/2006 written to the Immigration Minister in which you express concerns about the changes to the immigration settlement rules under the categories of Work Permit holders (WP) and Highly Skilled Migrants (HSMP).

You mention that the change to the settlement rules is of a retrospective nature and request that the change should be reviewed and that the retrospective aspect (only) should be abolished. Normally, a retrospective law is one which is applied to those who have already fulfilled the law, and the effect of it being retrospective is to require them to qualify all over again. This is not the way that Government in the UK works; but we do make laws that take effect a short time after they are passed. That is what has happened here.

Those who have already qualified for settlement are allowed to keep their qualified status. The change only affects those who have still not qualified and there are a number of other factors that will determine whether they qualify anyway, most important of which is their employment. I can understand the frustration that people feel at this, and your 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.

The clear policy intention behind the change is to ensure that applicants for settlement in the UK have established a genuine link here. The fact that a person came to the UK at a time when 4 years residence led to settlement does not of itself mean that, after 4 years, he/she will be granted settlement, because it is quite conceivable that the immigration rules will be changed during that period - the rules must be capable of being changed from time to time so that the Government can carry out its policies.

So, the information provided on our website and in information leaflets reflects the immigration rules in force at the time. It is a simple statement of the law and does not mean that the Government cannot change those rules in the proper manner at a later date. Our position is that the change to the settlement qualifying period 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. If their employment were about to cease after four years they would not qualify for settlement anyway. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the argument that a particular group's immigration position is being worsened or made less secure by this measure.

We did spend some considerable time balancing the effect of this change against the Government's wider wishes for ensuring that UK settlement policy is consistent and supports the strengthening of attachment to the UK. The consequence that everyone who has not qualified at the time of the rule changes will have to wait a further year is unavoidable and would occur at whatever time and in whatever circumstances we increased the qualifying period for settlement.

Finally, I would like to add that the UK is still committed to being an attractive destination for hard working and skilled people. Indeed, we have acknowledged frequently the great benefits that migrant groups bring to this country. These changes do not alter that view.

Yours sincerely

Ms J Dulieu
Correspondence Team

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

"not desirable" or "unavoidable", which is it? - should be one of the many questions put to the Immigration authorities.

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

5 years for ILR rule implemented

“the Abolition of Parliament Bill”

Re: “the Abolition of Parliament Bill”