Her Majesty's forces still only 4 yrs to ILR

[John]

This is not a comment about any particular post .... but cool it folks .... keep the discussion polite ..... or this will get locked!

As regards the words from the OP :-

I did notice that if you are a member of Her Majesty’s forces and are about to be discharged or have already been discharged from the forces you can still clam ILR after 4 years.

Is this not like the COA case were there was obvious discrimination against people who were married in a registers office to those getting married in Church.

-: my comment is this. I suspect it is just another example of the incompetence of certain people in IND. Asked to change the immigration rules to make references to 4 years into references to 5 years, they succeeded in doing that as regards HSMP, WP, EEA and Ancestry, but overlooked doing that for the Gurkhas!

Accordingly the new form SET(O) reflects the immigration rules as they are drafted at the moment. But I shall not be surprised in the ILR legislation for Gurkhas is brought into line at some stage in the future.

Does the current difference give grounds for possible legal action? Does it amount to discrimination? Quite possibly, and certainly another angle those contemplating legal action anyway might include in their pleadings.

[bbdivo]

You have group's of people group A, group B, group C, Group X.
All of them have to fill full certain requirements in order qualify for ILR, lets say that period is 4 years.

Then the rules are changed and group's A, B & C now have to complete 5 years. Group X stay's at 4 years. There is no relevance to who they are or what they do (or even what opinion we have of them). The main point is that if the UK was bringing itself inline with Europe then they would bring all of these groups inline with the 5 year rule.

Which indicates to me that the five year rule is a farce and that in fact in it is an attempt to generate revenue and to reduce numbers, or some other sinister scheme that the HO has come up with.

As I have explained before the five year qualifying period is 5 years continues legal stay including 2.5 years as a student. So just to say the UK is bringing itself inline by adding a another year in fact takes it further away from the European norm as the European long stay visa equates to the UK 10 year ILR in terms of its requirements. 5 years seems like a number picked at random there is no clear clarification as to it’s actually origin as it is nothing like the European norm

The only similarity is in the number 5

Were I come from this would be clearly be seen as discrimination and we have specific laws that would not allow this to happen (we have learnt the hard way)

UK politics is covered in spin and propaganda this is how politicians they keep there jobs it is our responsibility to expose the corrupt and unjust ones that would abuse there power just because they think they can.

Based on your argument, then people who get ILR through marriage should also revert to 5 years, and they should also have to get there naturalisation after 6. Why they should they get the privilege of getting ILR after 2 years? In fact in a lot of cases a spouse (especially female) will come in and not work (ie not contributing to NI and Tax) but will still benefit from our Healthe Service and be entitled to other benefits.

[rooi_ding]

I think that quite allot of people are missing the point

This is not about whether the forces deserve ILR or not I think that is up to the UK government.

Its not about people who get ILR through marriage because the qualifying period is already defined as being 2 years and was not 4 years and then reduced to 2 years or increased to 5 years (or what ever number it is).

This is about a number of groups of different immigration categories that all qualified after 4 years. Then the rules were changed and the qualifying period becomes 5 years EXECPT for one specific group that stays at 4 years.

The point is, and when you read the whole thread, that the 5 years is not a number that has some specific significance or brings the UK inline with Europe but is quite random.

The HO has giving no actual concrete evidence as to the 5 year change, all they can come up with is it brings us inline with Europe however the European 5 years long stay directive is the equivalent to the UK 10 year ILR. If they really wanted to bring themselves inline with Europe then they would reduce the 10 years ILR to 5 years.

The HO have not given any benefits to the country for this change (in fact many would argue that this period would put many skilled migrants off coming to the UK)

The HO can not simple say, we can change the rules when we like, (which they can) because they know this equates to dictatorship because politicians are answerable to the voters. They are put in that position because of the voters and they have to justify their decisions.

I highlighted the discrimination as a flaw in the HO approach for this change……….

[Wanderer]

The fact of the matter is that the entire Earth belongs to all of us and we all have the god-given right to reside ANYWHERE on this planet that we choose.

Passports, visas and immigration controls are a 20th century wartime invention and as such should be left there as relics of our past.

Guess what, Wanderer, you can tell all us immigrants to go home, but we ARE home! Hahaha, that's the funniest thing about your ignorant statement. Do you want us to leave the planet?

I was going to post a responce but I've decided not to. I'll just apologise and bow out of this one.

Steve

[tereshchenko]

The fact of the matter is that the entire Earth belongs to all of us and we all have the god-given right to reside ANYWHERE on this planet that we choose.

Passports, visas and immigration controls are a 20th century wartime invention and as such should be left there as relics of our past.

Guess what, Wanderer, you can tell all us immigrants to go home, but we ARE home! Hahaha, that's the funniest thing about your ignorant statement. Do you want us to leave the planet?

Wow! I hope that was a joke

[L_E_O]

The fact of the matter is that the entire Earth belongs to all of us and we all have the god-given right to reside ANYWHERE on this planet that we choose.

Passports, visas and immigration controls are a 20th century wartime invention and as such should be left there as relics of our past.

Guess what, Wanderer, you can tell all us immigrants to go home, but we ARE home! Hahaha, that's the funniest thing about your ignorant statement. Do you want us to leave the planet?

Wow! I hope that was a joke

So do I but, sadly, I think some people really do have such misguided opinions.

[first2last4]

The fact of the matter is that the entire Earth belongs to all of us and we all have the god-given right to reside ANYWHERE on this planet that we choose.

Passports, visas and immigration controls are a 20th century wartime invention and as such should be left there as relics of our past.

Guess what, Wanderer, you can tell all us immigrants to go home, but we ARE home! Hahaha, that's the funniest thing about your ignorant statement. Do you want us to leave the planet?

Wow! I hope that was a joke

So do I but, sadly, I think some people really do have such misguided opinions.

This may sound a joke for now. But the way globalisation is paving its way I envisage there is more integration happening at international level. Today talent hunt are not limited to national level but international which was not the case just 20 year back.....
EU is going on expanding and West has started accepting countries like India and China as Awaking Giants (from sleeping giants)

Similarly Borders and barrier will become history and remain in theory in next few decades.....

[Dawie]

Can you explain to me what is so misguided about a world without borders?

[RobinLondon]

Whereas it is very possible that Earth will one day become a borderless society, there are very strong reasons why this can't happen immediately. The most persuasive, probably, is that it would be incredibly destabilising the moment it happened. Given the vast inequalities in income between rich and poor countries, removing borders overnight would cause a big bang, with massive immigration from poorer to richer countries. It's unavoidable, and rational too. Anyone from the poorer countries with the slightest means would immigrate to richer ones in order to improve their situations. If I were in their position, I would also do it too. I guarantee it. The trickle that you see now around the Spanish enclaves of Melilla and Ceuta in North Africa or around Sicily and the Canaries would become a torrent of immigration, and that's just a natural effect. The problem with this is that the richer countries would be incapable of handling the increase in arrivals. And there would also be a free-rider effect in which those already in the richer countries would have to be massively taxed to provide services to the recent poorer arrivals, who would not be able to shoulder an equal burden. Given very real limitations on the size of even highly-developed economies, there would likely be neither enough infrastructure nor work for the new residents. If you think the pensions crisis is bad now in this country, it would be much worse if the Treasury had to cope with these higher demands.

There are very good arguments for a borderless world, but the very real financial inequalities amongst countries makes it unworkable at present. What is vastly more feasible is attempting to improve the conditions in the poorer nations to remove the vast gradient between rich and poor. That would make the idea of a one-planet-society more achievable.

[L_E_O]

Can you explain to me what is so misguided about a world without borders?

You never said 'a world without borders'. You said everyone has the right to settle where they please and that is neither currently viable nor true. Using myself as an example, as a foreign national I do not have the right to settle in the UK - it is a privilege and I will not have the right to completely settle here until I am a citizen.

[Dawie]

I never thought I'd see the day that immigrants are anti-immigration. I guess the Sun and Daily Mirror have done a right proper job on you guys.

Why, I'd hazard a guess that if you'd been Jewish during WWII you'd have been on the German's side! Pathetic.

Actually the argument that in a borderless world all poor people from all over the world would come flooding into rich countries is baseless and without proof. People would only move to where they could find jobs. Do you think poor people from poor countries want to come to rich countries so that they can be poor there too? And why do you assume that people want to come to rich countries to scrounge off of the welfare system of those states?

People all over the world want to economically better themselves. Not to mention that most poor people all over the world could not even afford to move to their nearest city in the their home countries, how do you expect them to afford the airfare to any rich country of their choice?

Your arguments are full of prejudice and hate. Immigrants who are anti-immigration are like kidnap victims who start to sympathise with their kidnappers.

I suggest you all read a wonderful book called Open Borders: The case against immigration controls:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 02-1251114

Thank you and good day.

[L_E_O]

Hang on, I say settling in a foreign country is a privilege and you say I'm anti-immigration? That's quite a leap in logic there.

Actually the argument that in a borderless world all poor people from all over the world would come flooding into rich countries is baseless and without proof.

Really? So the story here about boatloads of African immigrants isn't proof? Similarly the many stories about Cuban immigrants sailing to America in makeshift rafts? People who are desperate to leave their country will do so in any way possible - it's not a matter of 'affording the airfare'.

[Dawie]

Hang on, I say settling in a foreign country is a privilege and you say I'm anti-immigration? That's quite a leap in logic there.

Yes, because you share the same mentality as all of those other anti-immigration folk out there. You probably share the view that immigrants should "put up" or "shut up" as well.

It's not a privilege to settle here. Calling it a privilege implies that we should be grateful and subservient. In fact during the 50's and 60's the UK was practically begging West Indians to settle here because of shortages of labour. It's the government of the UK that should be grateful and subservient to us. It's privilege to have us here.

Really? So the story here about boatloads of African immigrants isn't proof? Similarly the many stories about Cuban immigrants sailing to America in makeshift rafts? People who are desperate to leave their country will do so in any way possible - it's not a matter of 'affording the airfare'.

Firstly, I'd hardly call a few tens of thousands of Africans and Cubans attempting a perilous journey a flood.

Secondly, these people pay THOUSANDS of dollars each for their perilous journeys and in fact most of them are actually quite well off in their home countries and given a legal opportunity to get to Europe (or America) would much rather do it that way. A lot of them are professionals like doctors, engineers, nurses and teachers. Do you know how many African doctors there are sweeping your office clean every night? Or how many African nurses and teachers there are cleaning the shit off your toilets?

You argument is like saying that legalising drugs would increase drug use. It wouldn't because everyone who wants to do it is doing it already, despite it's illegality!

[RobinLondon]

I'm actually quite interested in the issue of open border controls and the feasibility of making it an economic and political reality. Thanks for your book suggestion, Dawie. I will read it.

[bbdivo]

Calling it a privilege implies that we should be grateful and subservient.

I really don't know where you get your ideas from. Grateful and subservient?

I suppose we can all live our own dream worlds.

Actually the argument that in a borderless world all poor people from all over the world would come flooding into rich countries is baseless and without proof.

And your assumption that it would not happen is also completely baseless and without proof.

Additionally your reference about being Jewish, WWII and Germany is a bit uncalled for, bit like a certain Mayor we all know.

[first2last4]

This topic is getting too much of attention... leading to a waste of time....

John, are you going to act on it.

[Dawie]

Heaven forbid we should have a discussion in a discussion forum! Better delete it! Can't have too much discussion around here.

[L_E_O]

Dawie, I'm going to leave you to it. Based on your last outbust and the fact that you seem intent on putting words into my mouth I've come to the conclusion that you do not want to have a reasonable and rational discussion - you'd rather sling as much mud as possible and see what sticks.