EEA Family Permit for Parents

[secret.simon]

The reference to the Annex A is to the Annex A of the original FOI request.

[Wanderer]

I'm pretty sure if there was a referendum on just this topic most people would actually vote against it controlling immigration at the cost of dividing families is not acceptable to all.

It entirely depends on the question you ask.

If you ask whether families should be divided by immigration policy, the answer will likely be no.

If you ask whether a naturalised British citizen should have the inalienable right to bring his whole family with him, I have no doubt the resounding answer will be no, probably accompanied by a clamour to tighten citizenship rules.

I agree, UK never has endorsed chain migration - it's just not culturally normal here.

Always a bit harsh to say but we see it over and over again on here, migrants know the rules when they make the decision to leave their parents home and life to settle here, then bleat when they door is closed to chain migration (not meaning anyone here - just a general observation) and won't possibly consider moving back to their home country. Migrants themselves choose to divide their families.

Instead it's 'not fair' and 'discriminatory'.

But thems the rules!

I'm donning my flak jacket........

[pranjam]

I'm pretty sure if there was a referendum on just this topic most people would actually vote against it controlling immigration at the cost of dividing families is not acceptable to all.

It entirely depends on the question you ask.

If you ask whether families should be divided by immigration policy, the answer will likely be no.

If you ask whether a naturalised British citizen should have the inalienable right to bring his whole family with him, I have no doubt the resounding answer will be no, probably accompanied by a clamour to tighten citizenship rules.

I agree, UK never has endorsed chain migration - it's just not culturally normal here.

Always a bit harsh to say but we see it over and over again on here, migrants know the rules when they make the decision to leave their parents home and life to settle here, then bleat when they door is closed to chain migration (not meaning anyone here - just a general observation) and won't possibly consider moving back to their home country. Migrants themselves choose to divide their families.

Instead it's 'not fair' and 'discriminatory'.

But thems the rules!

I'm donning my flak jacket........

I think this is grossly inaccurate and just another example of the false, lies being perpetrated by the Government and believed by the naive..

When I moved to the UK the rules were simple a single dependant parent over the age of 65 can be classed as dependant and will be given a PR. The dependency was financial not the almost impossible rules that are being put in place now. The only reason I chose UK was because there was that opportunity for me to bring my mother over.

It's these lies being spread by the uninformed which is harming the debate on immigration more than the immigration itself, the fear mongering and the hyperbole on the effects of immigration are driving people to the edge of hysteria.

Also UK has not supported chain migration as some other countries, might have heard of "seed babies" in the US. I'm not sure where you saw examples of chain immigration to the UK (i mean the type from outside the EU) but most of it used to happen in the 50s-80s when UK actively encouraged it in order to meet the demand of its then burgeoning industries in the north.

It is quite pathetic that a country will first invite immigrants to contribute to the growth and then the "natives" (not meaning anyone here - just a general observation) will bleat,whine and cry about chain immigration but fail to understand that it is a direct consequence of the former. A country cannot reap the rewards without facing the consequences and it is extremely harsh to divide families when you change the rules mid way through their settlement process.

[secret.simon]

the false, lies being perpetrated by the Government and believed by the naive..

That's democracy.

When I moved to the UK the rules were simple a single dependant parent over the age of 65 can be classed as dependant and will be given a PR. The dependency was financial not the almost impossible rules that are being put in place now. The only reason I chose UK was because there was that opportunity for me to bring my mother over.

On this point, I agree with you. Given the expectation that was set when people were invited into the country, it was not fair to change it while they were in the country. That was broadly the basis of the HSMP(JR) judgment that so many applicants on these forums were able to utilise successfully after 2006.

If a sufficient head of steam can be generated on this aspect on these forums, I believe that there is scope to take the government to court to have provisions in place for parents visas to be decided on the basis of rules when their children entered the country, not when they applied themselves.

I would wait for some of the lawyers on these forums, such as Obie, Amber or vinny to comment on this before taking it forward.

It is quite pathetic that a country will first invite immigrants to contribute to the growth and then the "natives" (not meaning anyone here - just a general observation) will bleat,whine and cry about chain immigration but fail to understand that it is a direct consequence of the former. A country cannot reap the rewards without facing the consequences and it is extremely harsh to divide families when you change the rules mid way through their settlement process.

When there was a need for workers, they were invited. If sufficient did not arrive, the invitation was extended to their immediate family, like spouses and children, to encourage more to come. The commitment was not an open-ended commitment to endless family migration.

And when the need was met, the invitation to more was withdrawn.

Freedom of movement of workers/labour does not automatically engender freedom of movement of their families. In India and China, both of which are larger in land-mass and population than the whole of the EU put together, there is a lot of migration within the country in search of jobs, which does not entail the family moving with the main bread-earner.

And I think the UK (and Europe in general) is incredibly generous with its immigration provisions. Leaving aside the refugee & asylum seekers, which I feel are over-generous provisions, it provides routes for most long-term residents to earn citizenship. That is not always the case even in other developed countries like the US. And look at the Middle-East. You can spend your entire life there and not have any rights at all, let alone having a pathway to citizenship.

[pranjam]

When there was a need for workers, they were invited. If sufficient did not arrive, the invitation was extended to their immediate family, like spouses and children, to encourage more to come. The commitment was not an open-ended commitment to endless family migration.

It was an open ended commitment to endless family migration at the time which is what actually happened. They have changed the laws over time to make them more strict but as we seem to agree in some cases they are not just.

Freedom of movement of workers/labour does not automatically engender freedom of movement of their families. In India and China, both of which are larger in land-mass and population than the whole of the EU put together, there is a lot of migration within the country in search of jobs, which does not entail the family moving with the main bread-earner.

Not sure about China but in India in the middle class people do move with their wives and children and don't leave them behind, infact if there are dependant parents they do take them as well when feasible.

And I think the UK (and Europe in general) is incredibly generous with its immigration provisions. Leaving aside the refugee & asylum seekers, which I feel are over-generous provisions, it provides routes for most long-term residents to earn citizenship. That is not always the case even in other developed countries like the US. And look at the Middle-East. You can spend your entire life there and not have any rights at all, let alone having a pathway to citizenship.

Generosity is a relative term EU is generous compared to some but not so when compared to others. Taking in refugees and asylum seekers should be done on a humanitarian basis and considering some of the source countries for these refugees are in dire straights because of the foreign policies of the EU and other western countries I think it is entirely justified that they would seek refuge here.

In any case we have digressed from the topic it seems like this way is not feasible at the moment until UKBA changes its guidance for British Citizens
Thanks all for your inputs much appreciated..