Post
by ukswus » Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:41 pm
By the way, these are some of the concerns I mentioned in my letter to HSMP forum. People are welcome to use some of these ideas if they write to their MPs later.
********************************************
Regarding the recently published consultation paper by MAC, I would like to mention a few worrying points that I have noticed regarding specifically Tier 1 visa (which I have at the moment). I am sure equally valid concerns can be raised about suggested changes for Tier 2 route, which will hopefully be done by other people.
To be more specific, MAC mentions that:
"1.5 Only Tiers 1 and 2 of the PBS are in scope for this work. Our
recommended limit for Tier 1 will apply to the current Tier 1 general route
only, including dependants. It will apply to inflows into and from within Tier 1
from both within and outside the UK. It will therefore include in-country
migrants switching into, and extending under, Tier 1."
In my opinion, this paragraph unambiguously suggests that a future permanent cap may apply not only to the new applications for Tier 1 General visas, but also to those extending their stay under this category. This is further corroborated here:
"Question 6: The stock of main (non-dependant) migrant workers under
Tiers 1 and 2 is determined by (i) new migration from outside the UK and
(ii) extensions and switching between routes by migrants within the UK.
If migration is to be reduced, do you most favour achieving this via cuts
in (i) or (ii)?"
I have no legal training, and therefore cannot judge whether such retrospective changes can be applied from the legal point of view, but I do believe they should not be introduced at least on the moral grounds. Making existing applicants compete for places under any possible caps at the extension phase will expose them to major uncertainty, in addition to having to comply with already very strict rules. At the time of extension, many people who may otherwise have complied with all the rules and regulations they signed up for when they had moved into the UK, will be sent home, with a major damage done to their life and career prospects. It is one thing for a person to be denied entry into the UK when they are still at home, with their property still in their possession and career ongoing. It is a completely different story to send a person back to their country of origin, when they have invested so much into the country they had reasonable expectation of settling.
The introduction of such an uncertainty may have other detrimental implications. For example, suppose a Tier 1 General holder intends to find a new job about a year before their current visa will expire. One can imagine how difficult it will be for them to find an employer willing to take them on, without knowing if they will be able to fit into the quota.
Similarly, it does not appear to be a particularly business-friendly policy to uproot staff failing possible extension cap. On most occasions, Tier 1 General holders are highly skilled workers engaged in high value-added work, and it will be very unfair to make the UK employers lose such workers, when there was no reason for this other than not fitting into the suggested extension cap.
From yet another perspectives, the costs of such a cap on dependents of Tier 1 holders can be very substantial. Their spouses will face the same uncertainly regarding meeting a possible cap requirement on extension applicants, making it very difficult for them to find an employer willing to employ them. Moreover, in a hypothetical scenario when the otherwise qualified Tier 1 holder fails to get an extension because of the cap, their children may have to leave school in the middle of the academic year, losing a whole year of education because of having to go back home (school programs have considerable variation in their curricula around the world).
Finally, this question implies that the flow of dependant applications may be regulated according to different principles from the main applications:
“Question 7: To what extent should reductions in flows through Tiers 1
and 2 be met through reduced migration of dependants? Should
dependent numbers be reduced by proportionately more than those of
main migrants?â€
