MPs joint report accuse Govt of 'cheating' with HSMP

[Administrator]

.

OKay folks --

Complaints received.

Vinay, you have posted extensive information here with many links.

I appreciate that content very much ... however, your choices of formatting are making your point very very difficult to comprehend. If you wish to continue here, I would suggest that you try shorter, more focused and better formatted posts.

That is a recommendation, not an order.

For everyone reading this.


We advocate and support both free speech and anonymity in this forum.

Accept those concepts and work with them.

Do not abuse those privileges or we will be forced to remove them from the forum.

I'll be really, very seriously faced off if I'm forced to do that, so humor me and keep me in a good mood and I will remain a hands-off and gentle Admin.


Abusing other members for their anonymity (or their courage to identify themselves publicly) is a Bad Idea, as is telling other people to shut up when they are expressing their opinion.

And, that means you, JFLE.

Bringing a war into this forum from another forum or forums is not something I'm really in favor of. If you have a conflict in other forums, keep your bickering in them.

That does not mean you can't express your opinion here, but keep it short and to the point, and keep it civil.


When you register here, you affirm that you are an adult and that you will behave like one here, as well as be exposed to a real adult world a demonstrate the maturity to cope.


I could have locked this topic or moved it out of public view.

I've decided to do something more devious.

I'm leaving it in place to see if you can all play nice here together.

I have faith you can find a way to do it, and I wish very much that you will do so. I value this forum very highly and want to keep it very free and very open and filled with exceptional, high-value content.


Thank you very much for your contributions toward that effort.

the Admin

[Administrator]

.

Now, a separate issue, which is policy that applies to all:

Nobody is to use this forum to promote their own business. I will consider the promotion of the other forums to fall in this category.

Please stop it.

Mention of other websites, even our competitors, is allowed when it is a relevant resource directly related to a topic being discussed.

It should be a rare event. Otherwise we will ban it. Along with the offender(s).

Posting the same links a dozen times over is something I'd like very much not to see again.


And, open solicitation for funding is also strongly discouraged.

Cease and desist. Immediately.

the Admin

[vinay shanthi]

sorry for the trouble moderators / administrator

-apologies for the trouble and thank you for not locking the thread
-wont place links for 'competitors' again
-was just posting some information for HSMPs benefit
-donations were for legal challenge on behalf of HSMPs, but will not raise that issue again as it is considered commercial
-dont have any conflicts on other forums as i do not know anyone personally on those forums. but just was an opinion from what i saw.

apologies for bringing up the 'anonymous' issue.

have a nice day and thank you for providing us with a useful source of information

[Administrator]

.

Thank you, vinay.

My personal feelings about free speech are in conflict with my duties (sometimes). Any demand or request I make here applies to all, even if I single one or two out in a response as part of an example.

Some topics demand emotion. "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention," as one of my favorite old sayings goes.

Try to focus the outrage into a precision weapon.

If you learn how to do that, please teach me.

the Admin

[vinay shanthi]

hey your fav saying is a good one and your sentences following that are better ones

cheers

[vinay shanthi]

"Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases); proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /17301.htm
(link provided as it was relavant to the message )

does the fact that the committee can draft remedial orders and remedial orders mean that it can issue an order to the government like any other quasi judicial body?

but this contrasts with...

"Powers

The Committee has the power to require the submission of written evidence and documents, to examine witnesses, to meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved), to adjourn from place to place, to appoint specialist advisers, and to make Reports to both Houses. The Lords Committee has power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman. "

....where it mentions only about powers to summon and examine and nothing about remedial orders.

any legal people have any ideas or clarifications on this ???

[EdgeHillMole]

"Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases); proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /17301.htm

does the fact that the committee can draft remedial orders and remedial orders mean that it can issue an order to the government like any other quasi judicial body?

I read the above to mean the JCHR can consider any of the following:

1. Matters relating to human rights
2. Proposals for remedial orders
3. Draft remedial orders (The word "draft" being used as an adjective, not as a verb)
4. Remedial orders

So, I guess I interpreted this paragraph to mean that the JCHR could review remedial orders, proposals for remedial orders, or drafts of remedial orders. Don't know if they can actually write them.

[willnotbackHSMP]

Like any other joint committee the JCHR works similar to Select committee. Findings by select committee are reported to the Commons, printed, and published on the Parliament website. The government then usually has 60 days to reply to the committee's recommendations.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/committees/joint.cfm

So the Govt have to reply to JCHR's recommendations within 60 days ?

[Rog]

The govt will probably sit out the 60 days and then dish out the standard reply of the changes not being retrospective and a need of "robust" and "strong" immigration system etc

[bani]

The govt will probably sit out the 60 days and then dish out the standard reply of the changes not being retrospective and a need of "robust" and "strong" immigration system etc

They're going to need to be more specific than that. It's a long report they have to answer to, where each of the new rules were deemed to violate human rights. The promise of each HSMP visa holder to make the UK their "main home" is a strong point. I don't think they government could just say, "we meant their main home for the duration of their visa or until we change the rules again".

[Crazy_Canuck]

So, what are the odds that I'll be applying for ILR in March '08 as it will be the end of 4 years under HSMP...

[vinay shanthi]

So, what are the odds that I'll be applying for ILR in March '08 as it will be the end of 4 years under HSMP...

hopefully someone will have challenged the ILR 4-5y issue in AIT cases individually by then. i am aware atleast 1 person seems to be exploring this option now and another one is making queries about this.

the 3 Jrs over this issue should be settled by then hopefully if the govt does not get innovative with the way it has been getting the various excuses for getting hearings adjurned / delayed / saying documents not received etc etc.

there will be loads more coming up for the 4y period in the meantime. maybe one of them might explore this option by then. since it is on similar grounds as hsmp extensions based on old guidance notes, many cases in AIT have succeeded. i dont see why with exactly the same / similar clauses in old hsmp guidance notes regarding assurances on ILR why there shouldnt be a good chance of success in AIT. assuming the initial ILR applications at 4y get automatically rejected under new immigration rules. but like majority on the forum, mine is a laymans opinion. if others have not challenged it by then maybe you can.

[olisun]

there will be loads more coming up for the 4y period in the meantime. maybe one of them might explore this option by then. since it is on similar grounds as hsmp extensions based on old guidance notes, many cases in AIT have succeeded. i dont see why with exactly the same / similar clauses in old hsmp guidance notes regarding assurances on ILR why there shouldnt be a good chance of success in AIT. assuming the initial ILR applications at 4y get automatically rejected under new immigration rules. but like majority on the forum, mine is a laymans opinion. if others have not challenged it by then maybe you can.

Are you assuming or saying that till now nobody who have been effected by the 4-5 yr change have still not applied for ILR after completing the addtional 1yr??

As the govt. said there will be no problems for applying for ILR after 5 yrs, I have yet to come across one case where the applicant has not been able to apply for ILR after completing 5 yrs (one who has been effected by the 4-5 yr change)

[vinay shanthi]

olisun

i was talking about applying for ILR at 4y and not 5y.

i know there wont be any problems for those applying for ILR at 5y as rules stand today.

i was only referring to those that might want to apply for ILR at 4y instead of 5y based on old hsmp scheme

[Crazy_Canuck]

Hmmm,

I suppose I should have re-phrased my original post. What I meant to say would be more along the line of:

"When I apply next spring after 4 years under HSMP, will my application for ILR be straight forward or will I have to jump hurdles?"

I would hope by next spring, considering the depth and consistency of the report, people under the old scheme would be having their 4 year ILR applications approved as a matter or course.

[sakura]

Hmmm,

I suppose I should have re-phrased my original post. What I meant to say would be more along the line of:

"When I apply next spring after 4 years under HSMP, will my application for ILR be straight forward or will I have to jump hurdles?"

I would hope by next spring, considering the depth and consistency of the report, people under the old scheme would be having their 4 year ILR applications approved as a matter or course.

Well the report is just a report, isn't it? The rules have not yet changed back to 4 years. So if you applied stating it is 4 years when in fact the HO have not yet lost their challenge, your application would just be refused. Only when the HO has lost their challenge could it be possible? Otherwise why have people been getting extensions (on their HSMP), if not because nothinig has yet changed (back)!

But of course, if the changes have been made back to 4 years, then there wouldn't be any hurdles, as long as you have all your supporting documents.

[Crazy_Canuck]

Hmmm,

I suppose I should have re-phrased my original post. What I meant to say would be more along the line of:

"When I apply next spring after 4 years under HSMP, will my application for ILR be straight forward or will I have to jump hurdles?"

I would hope by next spring, considering the depth and consistency of the report, people under the old scheme would be having their 4 year ILR applications approved as a matter or course.

Well the report is just a report, isn't it? The rules have not yet changed back to 4 years. So if you applied stating it is 4 years when in fact the HO have not yet lost their challenge, your application would just be refused. Only when the HO has lost their challenge could it be possible? Otherwise why have people been getting extensions (on their HSMP), if not because nothinig has yet changed (back)!

But of course, if the changes have been made back to 4 years, then there wouldn't be any hurdles, as long as you have all your supporting documents.

I think that we need to clarify that it is not necessarily a change BACK to 4yrs. People applying under the new scheme would fall under the 5 year plan while people like me who applied under the old scheme would have their ILR processed after 4 years as stated in their HSMP extension documents. It is all a matter of putting the goal posts back to where they should be for the people under he 4yr scheme.

The argument here goes further than just a matter of 4 vs 5 years for qualifying for ILR. It is removing the ability of the HO to arbitrarily apply rule changes retrospectively to people who have qualified and have come to the UK to make it their home whom are already in the system.

[sakura]

Hmmm,

I suppose I should have re-phrased my original post. What I meant to say would be more along the line of:

"When I apply next spring after 4 years under HSMP, will my application for ILR be straight forward or will I have to jump hurdles?"

I would hope by next spring, considering the depth and consistency of the report, people under the old scheme would be having their 4 year ILR applications approved as a matter or course.

Well the report is just a report, isn't it? The rules have not yet changed back to 4 years. So if you applied stating it is 4 years when in fact the HO have not yet lost their challenge, your application would just be refused. Only when the HO has lost their challenge could it be possible? Otherwise why have people been getting extensions (on their HSMP), if not because nothinig has yet changed (back)!

But of course, if the changes have been made back to 4 years, then there wouldn't be any hurdles, as long as you have all your supporting documents.

I think that we need to clarify that it is not necessarily a change BACK to 4yrs. People applying under the new scheme would fall under the 5 year plan while people like me who applied under the old scheme would have their ILR processed after 4 years as stated in their HSMP extension documents. It is all a matter of putting the goal posts back to where they should be for the people under he 4yr scheme.

Yes I know, but I am obviously talking about the 4-5 yr challenge allowing it to be 4 years for those who are affected, not for everyone else.

[Crazy_Canuck]

It is going to be a very interesting fall and winter that's for sure!