Government response to petition on retrospective changes

[timesofindia]

I have been reading this thread and would like to put my view:
1. everyone who joined HSMP after Nov'2006 did sign saying "they understand and accept that rules could change in future" and need not remain same for extensions etc..
2. BUT they also signed saying "I will make the UK as my main home",.
This has been a very important line with regard to HSMP Forum case where Lawywers argued based on Article 8 of ECHR and in other cases judge simply referred to these judgements..
Judge's argument was that they were asked to make the UK as main home and migrants did so .. so it will be unfair to changes the rules at a future to make it difficult for them..
http://www.hsmpforumltd.com/aitappeals.html
3. Probably this is the reason the "main home" clause was removed from Tier 1 forms..
Considering the above I would assume that Government would put transitional arrangements for people who first came in thru HSMP even though they HAD TO switch to tier 1 and will be on TIER 1 at the time of ILR.

[push]

I have been reading this thread and would like to put my view:
1. everyone who joined HSMP after Nov'2006 did sign saying "they understand and accept that rules could change in future" and need not remain same for extensions etc..
2. BUT they also signed saying "I will make the UK as my main home",.
This has been a very important line with regard to HSMP Forum case where Lawywers argued based on Article 8 of ECHR and in other cases judge simply referred to these judgements..
Judge's argument was that they were asked to make the UK as main home and migrants did so .. so it will be unfair to changes the rules at a future to make it difficult for them..
http://www.hsmpforumltd.com/aitappeals.html
3. Probably this is the reason the "main home" clause was removed from Tier 1 forms..
Considering the above I would assume that Government would put transitional arrangements for people who first came in thru HSMP even though they HAD TO switch to tier 1 and will be on TIER 1 at the time of ILR.

First of all the declaration was "I intend to make UK my main home", secondly even after changing the rules the Government could conveniently argue that is is not stopping HSMP holders from making UK their main home - they are happy for them to do so but instead of 5 years it will take 8 years!!

Let us wait for the final rules in this regard before arguing based on our own predictions about the same.

[geriatrix]

Correct! None of us are policy makers for the govt., and speculating on what may / should / must happen will do nothing good but only add to the worries without a substantive reason!

Until such time that the govt. / UKBA / MAC publishes how they plan to implement the permanent cap and, who all will be affected by the permanent cap, the most anyone can do is make assumptions, nothing more! And making assumptions or justifying / discussing those is not going to help anyone!


regards

[stewie]

I have been reading this thread and would like to put my view:
1. everyone who joined HSMP after Nov'2006 did sign saying "they understand and accept that rules could change in future" and need not remain same for extensions etc..
2. BUT they also signed saying "I will make the UK as my main home",.

Hi,

I'm on my 5 year work permit, received January 2007. There wasn't anything about "understand and accept that rules could change in the future" but there was "I will make the UK as my main home".

Now, when they changed the Tier 1 points recently from 95 to 100, why isn't there an exception for people in a situation like me?

Cheers

[geriatrix]

Why do you think there should be .. such an exception .. for someone who was (and perhaps still is) not a HSMP / Tier 1 migrant? Doesn't Tier 2 provide transitional arrangements for people who entered UK under the Work Permit scheme and need to extend their stay in the UK?

Just because one is granted entry into the UK under one immigration category doesn't mean that rules for immigration categories that he/she doesn't belong to will also remain the same for his/her benefit or that any claim of such changes being unlawful is in itself justified or lawful.


regards

[stewie]

Why do you think there should be .. such an exception ..

thanks, good point, but... old WP's didn't sign anything about understanding and agreeing that rules can change in the future, unlike newer WP/Tier 2 applicants. Didn't they add this question as a result of HSMP Judical review if I understand correctly? If yes, it means that a similar case could be brough for old WP's as well.

Logically old WP's should be on old rules as well, without any market tests, etc., but that's not the case at all. I'm not mentioning even allowing old WP's to apply to Tier 1 by old rules, which were on place at the time they entered the market.

Old WP's only signed about "making UK their home", which is not going very well.

[geriatrix]

Just because they did not sign off to such a statement (or statements) doesn't make them immune to changes.

People wishing that HSMP JR should cover them too or the same reasons exist for the immigration category they belong to must first understand the basis of the HSMP legal challenge (legitimate expectation) and the evidence in UKBA published documents that proved that the claim for legitimate expectation was justified.


regards

[stewie]

... understand the basis of the HSMP legal challenge (legitimate expectation) ...

Completely agree. Please see the article here:
http://www.gherson.com/News/HSMPlegitim ... again.aspx

This is the legitimate expectation I suppose? Absolutely same is applicable to old WP's:

The HSMP sought to attract people who were likely to command high earnings to the UK. Under its terms, applicants had among other things, to show that they intended to make the UK their main home, and accordingly many successful applicants had brought their families with them and had put down roots in the UK.

In November of 2006, the Secretary of State brought in changes to the Immigration Rules whereby the qualifying criteria for entry under the HSMP were made far more demanding.

Controversially, the changes also affected people who were already in the UK under the HSMP. They had to meet these stringent new tests in order to qualify for extensions of their stay in the UK. Prior to the changes applicants had needed only to show that they had remained "economically active in the UK" to succeed in applying for indefinite leave to remain after having spent the required number of years in the UK under the scheme.

Many of these people were simply unable to qualify under the changed rules.

Similarly, many of old WP's are no longer able to qualify under changed rules.

[geriatrix]

Relying on information published on commercial website(s) isn't how I would build my understanding! But that's me!

Good place to start: HSMP Forum Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 664 (Admin) (08 April 2008)

regards

[aakash.reuben]

Please refer to this news item

http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/new ... ration-cap

[letmec2006]

Hi Guys
Too much of fuss about immigration this morning in the press. I thought of sharing with you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11191341

http://www.colerainetimes.co.uk/latest- ... 6514273.jp

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... s-axe.html

Interestingly enough the first article from BBC rightly points out the net immgration is higher due to returning British population back to the UK. I see...


Read the last one from Telegragh, though I would question the genuinety of the paper:

"It also emerged last year that migrants could be given tips on how to access benefits and other public services as part of a mentoring scheme for those wanting to settle permanently in Britain.

The so-called "earned citizenship" scheme is now under review and could be binned altogether.

Damian Green, the immigration minister, said: "We are still pondering whether that is the most effective way to do it. "Within the next few months we will have a decision as to whether that is the best way to achieve a proper commitment. It's under review."

Fantastico...

Letmec..

[CoolestGuyC]

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/horr43c.pdf Says

Over a quarter (29%) of those who entered the UK in the work leading to citizenship) route in 2004 were granted settlement after five years.
The majority (60%) of migrants granted work (leading to citizenship) visas were no longer in the immigration system after five years.

[ukswus]

A top government adviser says ministers may need to stop workers bringing families to meet an immigration cap.

"To reach the [net target of] tens of thousands from hundreds of thousands, you have got to be thinking about dependents," said Prof Metcalf.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11221559

For those, who don't know- Metcalf is a chairman of the Migration Advisory Committee. A rather key person.

[MJNair]

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-cent ... mmigration

Found this in the Home Office website

[ukswus]

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-cent ... mmigration

Found this in the Home Office website

"But I was also struck by some of the individual applications I saw under the skilled worker category; people running take-away restaurants and production-line workers on salaries in the low £20,000s. These are not the sort of jobs people talk about when we think of bringing in skilled immigrants who have talents not available among our own workforce among our own unemployed. And there is some evidence that not all those coming in under the highly skilled route find highly skilled work in this country. Certainly we cannot assume that everyone coming here to work has skills that the UK workforce cannot offer."

Existing PBS will prevent these people from getting extensions anyway. So what's the point of targeting them with caps?

[hsmp1412]

The problem with the rules is that they focus completely on the income of a person - which is no criteria for being highly skilled! A rich take-away restaurant owner is not unheard of.

[letmec2006]

Existing PBS will prevent these people from getting extensions anyway. So what's the point of targeting them with caps?

Agree with you, having seen so many media info last couple of days on immigration, wondering is this a sham to hide the soon coming tight governments spending review or may be interest rate hike etc etc

Anyway coming to the point it looks very scary what has been said? Who knows what is coming, Oh I have no idea.
Definetely I dont think it would be good for strangers like me in this country (ah already I am feeling that way)..

[letmec2006]

[quote]Speaking at the Royal Commonwealth Club, Mr Green said: "We need steady downward pressure on many routes to long-term immigration in order to hit our net migration commitment.â€

[Papa2010]

I refer you to the link below and to Q78 - Q81. It does seem HO/UKBA are on some kind of witch-hunt.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... c36101.htm

All this talk of controlling immigration and using migrants as scapegoat is because they can't deliver to their own citizens. They should have done better to educate their citizens and give them skills to compete in today's Global World. They failed that so we are their scapegoat.

It is a pity that a Minister of this Nation gives such a speech and gets into petty issues like ukswus pointed above. If those highly skilled or whoever feels like working in a restaurant to get a better pay, good for him.

Check the link - was not a Doctor Partner and GP refused extension. I thought if someone was given entry visa or leave to remain to work and, "without recourse to public funds", the thing that should concern them later if that person is making another application for extension should be whether he/she is contributing economically and not relying on public funds. End of story.

They are giving all sorts of names to migrants here of work visas and, their millions citizens outside who would never want to come back are nicelt called as "British expatriates".

They are very proud of their own becoming a Prime Minister in Australia...

Anyway, they should very much respect peoples' right to private and family life.

[noor1034]

Please see link below...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... c36101.htm

and read from Q146....

[letmec2006]

Professor Metcalf: You can operate on the outflow of work to get the numbers down as well as operating on the inflow. The difficulty with operating on the outflow in the short term is that probably many of the people who are here have what sometimes they refer to as legitimate expectations of being able, for example, to extend or to settle - because the way that you work on the outflow is influencing the duration of the stay. That would be things like weakening the link between work and settlement; possibly on the post-study work route making that more selective, for example. Frankly, I don’t think that it’s likely that these policies would kick in, even if you were to introduce them now, until 2013-14. So I think in the initial period - this year, for our recommendations the following year - we’re going to have to be making recommendations dealing with the inflow of work but while simultaneously addressing a number of considerations that the Government may want to think about to address the problem in the longer term.

Number of interesting things Prof was talking about