5 years for ILR rule implemented

[nonothing]

However it seems to me that there is a window of opportunity in the 2nd part of the Under Secretary's response:

Nevertheless we are ready to to listen to you about any unintended hardships that are directly instigated by this change - but for most areas of life, if not all, things are simply continue as usual"

We have a good case that there are significant areas where it is not "life as usual", that there are hardships created to our lives and plans by virtue of the retrospectivity of the law. now we should make that case forcefully and promptly before they forget (or deny) they ever said such a thing.

sorry, i'm not that optimistic with whose words. if my memory works ok, i saw the exactly same words in the letter from Tony McNulty to Christine Lee. so it seems they're their routine flubdub. they listen from one ear and let them go out of the other ear. they only keep those words they're willing to listen.

we must not be distracted by those words "we are ready to to listen". we must keep pressing them on the "Retrospective" issue, which they're trying to find all kinds of funny excuses to deny.

[nonothing]

New programme is entirely different than old one and since they are applying that programme to us.isn't it Retrospective?

it definitely is Retrospective

but the problem is the HO don't admit it. so we need more MPs to be aware of it. only when a substaintial number of MPs are aware of it and agree with us, there might be hope. otherwise the HO can simply play game with us all the time.

[morerightsformigrants]

i agree let's keep it up boys

one of the things that we as a group really need to work on at the moment is how to let as many poeple know about this issue as soon as possible..... and gather more support...



quote="nonothing"]

However it seems to me that there is a window of opportunity in the 2nd part of the Under Secretary's response:

Nevertheless we are ready to to listen to you about any unintended hardships that are directly instigated by this change - but for most areas of life, if not all, things are simply continue as usual"

We have a good case that there are significant areas where it is not "life as usual", that there are hardships created to our lives and plans by virtue of the retrospectivity of the law. now we should make that case forcefully and promptly before they forget (or deny) they ever said such a thing.

sorry, i'm not that optimistic with whose words. if my memory works ok, i saw the exactly same words in the letter from Tony McNulty to Christine Lee. so it seems they're their routine flubdub. they listen from one ear and let them go out of the other ear. they only keep those words they're willing to listen.

we must not be distracted by those words "we are ready to to listen". we must keep pressing them on the "Retrospective" issue, which they're trying to find all kinds of funny excuses to deny.[/quote]

[Hidden dragon]

They can play balls.
They can play words.
However, after such a long time for considering, they still haven't produce an argument that can stand up to scrutiny!
We have a winning chance!

[Hidden dragon]

aj77, thank you!

Hidden dragon wrote,

Currently, work needs to be done to agree on a template text for the petition letter. You have got one, which is great. But could you plz take the initiative to liaison with one of Christine's team member to agree on the text? You could just send your text to them and ask them to use it or modify it

I did my work and I got the following reply from BTCD

Great!we'll put this as a campaign then,after revising it in our editorial. Probably tomorrow.

How do you want us to put the heading & notes? (I mean "campaign prepared by Chineese community in the UK to opoose...", or ...??) It is totally up to you.

We'll send you the link before distributing it anyway for your confirmation,

Best,

Any comments for Heading and notes to make it more effective?

(3) On the monitoring tool, as far as I know, “nonothing” has the same idea with yours, ie to produce a table of all MPs, update who were contacted and who weren't and what their reaction is etc. It is a huge task and need to get data from both BTCD and Christine Lee's Team. He might have started the work. Could you help him? Could you PM him?

I will PM nonothing about this.

[Hidden dragon]

The title can be "The Petition Against the Retrospective 4-to-5 Year Change in ILR Qualifying Rules".

What do you think?

aj77, thank you!

Hidden dragon wrote,

Currently, work needs to be done to agree on a template text for the petition letter. You have got one, which is great. But could you plz take the initiative to liaison with one of Christine's team member to agree on the text? You could just send your text to them and ask them to use it or modify it

I did my work and I got the following reply from BTCD

Great!we'll put this as a campaign then,after revising it in our editorial. Probably tomorrow.

How do you want us to put the heading & notes? (I mean "campaign prepared by Chineese community in the UK to opoose...", or ...??) It is totally up to you.

We'll send you the link before distributing it anyway for your confirmation,

Best,

Any comments for Heading and notes to make it more effective?

(3) On the monitoring tool, as far as I know, “nonothing” has the same idea with yours, ie to produce a table of all MPs, update who were contacted and who weren't and what their reaction is etc. It is a huge task and need to get data from both BTCD and Christine Lee's Team. He might have started the work. Could you help him? Could you PM him?

I will PM nonothing about this.

[aj77]

This might be ok?

The Petition Against the Retrospective Implementation of the 4-to-5 Qualifying Year Change in ILR Rules"

or
The Petition Against the Retrospective Implementation of the 4-to-5 Year rule Change in ILR"

[nonothing]

(3) On the monitoring tool, as far as I know, “nonothing” has the same idea with yours, ie to produce a table of all MPs, update who were contacted and who weren't and what their reaction is etc. It is a huge task and need to get data from both BTCD and Christine Lee's Team. He might have started the work. Could you help him? Could you PM him?

I will PM nonothing about this.

i've already put together a table with all the MPs on it. but there're still lots of work to be done. apparently i need people who have contacted their MPs to tell me their MPs' names and what messages they've got from their MPs, acknowledgement or response from the HO? and what kind of email/mail they sent to their MPs, general appeal email or EDM appeal email? plus, because there're 646 MPs, the table is quite long, so it seems i need a webspace to publish it.

in the meantime, i'm doing the search on both forums to try to dig up which MPs have been contacted and to fill in the table as much as i can. unfortunately i'm a bit busy at work these days, so it could take a while to search the forums.

[aj77]

RobinLondon wrote:

I received a rather formulaic letter from the Home Secretary essentially restating what we all know now as the Ministry's standard reply: This is not a big deal in real life...No one ever voiced any such concerns during the consultation process...Retroactive effects aren't a significant problem

Here Home Secretary says Retrospective Effects are not significant problem

Mentioning about his previous letter to RobinLondon,Home Secretary states
what we all know now as the Ministry's standard reply

Sowhat wrote:

The Under Secretary is arguing that it is not a retrospective law. I am quoting:
Quote:
"It passes legislation that takes effect from the date it is passed or later. This means that it applies to those who currently have leave to remain, but the effect you describe (retrospectiveness - SW) would happen wherever and in whatever circumstances we changed the qualifying period"

Replying to Sowat Under Secretary is arguing that it is not retrospective Law

can you see the contradiction in statements of Home Secretary and Under Secretary.

In other word Home Secretary is accepting it to be retrospective while Under Sectretary is denying it to be retrospective in another letter

[nonothing]

can you see the contradiction in statements of Home Secretary and Under Secretary.

In other word Home Secretary is accepting it to be retrospective while Under Sectretary is denying it to be retrospective in another letter

i guess the home secretary did think Retrospective Effects are not significant problem at the time. (how stupid and irresponsible is that!) now they've realised Retrospective Effects ARE significant problem, then they badly deny it.

[nonothing]

The title can be "The Petition Against the Retrospective 4-to-5 Year Change in ILR Qualifying Rules".

What do you think?

might "The Petition Against the Retrospective Implementation of the 4-to-5 Qualifying Year Change in ILR Rules" be better?

or
"The Petition Against the Retrospective Implementation of the IRL Qualifying Year Change in Immigration Rules"?

or more simply
"The Petition Against the Retrospective Implementation of the IRL Qualifying Year Change"?

cheers.

[aj77]

Today I received reply of my email,I sent to HO on 11th of April,2006.

Dear Sir

Current visa holders are not affected by the changes.

Regards


HSMP Team

I sent an email on that address:

hsmp.workpermits@ind.homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

this is an interpretation of these words we received from Customer Officer ,Work Permits:

Sent : 31 March 2006 16:47:07
Subject : RE: ILR confusion

| | | Inbox


Dear XXX,

Thank you for your email.

The e-mail from the HSMP team says that 'current visa holders will not be
affected'.

This means that if an individual has already been granted the first year
visa,( which up to now has been the rule for HSMP), they will still apply
for the 3 year extension, as before, but then a further year will be needed
because, after 3rd April 2006, all Overseas Nationals, whether they hold a
Work Permit or a Highly Skilled Migrants Visa, will need to show evidence
that they have ALREADY worked in the UK for FIVE YEARS.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

Regards,

Sarah Oxley
Customer Services Advisor

Customer Contact Centre
Work Permits (UK)
Home Office
PO Box 3468
Sheffield
S3 8WA

I can't understand why HSMP Team is still sending the same replies

and just look at the interpretation of these words by one of the Customer Service Advisor.

These people are being recruited to decide the fate of talented people from all over the world

[a11]

regarding the MPs already contacted:

I wrote to - and got a formal reply from - Mr. Andrew Slaughter, Ealing, Acton and Shepherds Bush.

A friend of mine wrote to - and got a very compassionate reply from - Mr Greg Hands, Hammersmith and Fulham.

[timefactor]

can we make a list of MP's and who contacted them with result? would be good to track the progress and further followups

regarding the MPs already contacted:

I wrote to - and got a formal reply from - Mr. Andrew Slaughter, Ealing, Acton and Shepherds Bush.

A friend of mine wrote to - and got a very compassionate reply from - Mr Greg Hands, Hammersmith and Fulham.

[Globetrotter]

I think that the key word here is "retrospective". We should highlight what type of precedence this could take with government drafting legislation. What the difference between this and say your road tax disk being changed to a 6 month validation - retrospective - NOTHING.

[aj77]

a11 wrote:

regarding the MPs already contacted:

I wrote to - and got a formal reply from - Mr. Andrew Slaughter, Ealing, Acton and Shepherds Bush.

A friend of mine wrote to - and got a very compassionate reply from - Mr Greg Hands, Hammersmith and Fulham

We need to make a list of all those MPs who have been contacted yet alongwith their responses.

a11, can you paste the wordings of responses you received.It might prove to be usefull too.

Globetrotter wrote:

key word here is "retrospective".

I certainly agree with you the,this is the key word we need to be focussed during our discussion.It's interpretation can play a vital role for the outcome of our struggle.

[a11]

sorry, not seven, but just two: the first one is from the Ealing, Acton and Shepherds Bush constituency and the second one is from the Hammersmith and Fulham constituency ))

as for the wordings, i'll need to check with my friend, but i have received the following:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the Early Day Motion
1912 as it raises many important issues. However, as Parliamentary
Private Secretary I am unable, by convention to sign EDMs; but will
carefully follow the debates as it progresses through Parliament.

[nonothing]

deleted

[a11]

nonothing, check your PM

[Kavik]

My case is bit different as I was qualified on 1st Apr for ILR my MP replied me like below. Not sure if it useful here but still mentioning.
I got reply in 3 working days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Office of John McDonnell <office@john-mcdonnell.net>
Date: Mar 21, 2006 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: Indefinate leave to remain - 4 to 5 years
To: ******<****@****.com>


Dear XXXXXX,

Thank you for your email message.

I recommend that you send your application for Indefinite Leave to Remain to the Immigration & Nationality Directorate with a covering letter explaining your concern about the 1st April date issue.

You should send your application by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery so that you can prove you posted it before the deadline.

Please keep a copy of the letter that you send with your application along with the Recorded Delivery details so that should there be a problem I can take the matter up with them on your behalf.

Best wishes,
John

John McDonnell MP
Hayes & Harlington

You can contact me on:
Phone: 020 8569 0010
Fax: 020 8569 0109
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[a11]

hey, just got a reply from Nick Clegg, shadow home secretary of libdems:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the changes to immigration rules
(House of Commons Paper 974, replaced by HC1016) including changes to
the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR).

I am concerned that this situation is unfair to those already in this
country who have made plans on the reasonable assumption that the
qualifying period would not change, and unnecessarily prejudices those
skilled immigrants who contribute significantly to this country and its
economy. We feel that the Home Office has not given sufficient notice
of these changes and that if they were justified; they should apply only
to those entering the country now, and not retrospectively.


To this end we have laid a motion against these changes which we hope to
debate in committee before the deadline as stipulated by parliamentary
procedure (we anticipate this will be in the next month).


I will write to you again when the outcome of the committee is known.


Thank you for raising this vital issue with me.


Yours sincerely
Sent on behalf of Nick Clegg MP

[nonothing]

that's encouraging.

[gaurav]

Keep up the good work guys, I have sent an email to my MP Jim Cousins and waiting for the reply....i can see something happening for the good if we continue with our efforts.

[tarzan]

Hello Friends,

I had already informed that shadow home secretary of conservatives Mr Damian Green MP, had agreed that the retrospective nature of these changes is unjust and conservatives will be opposing this element of the changes.

Now, shadow home secretary of Liberals Mr Nick Clegg MP, sent me a message saying in short that they find it unjust too, and they will act accordingly in parliament in order to change this.

Everybody involved in this fight,
Thank you and keep informing everyone, so that they inform their local MP's, party leaders and shadow home-immigration secretaries.

For those of you who think government did not promise anything, and nothing can be done by emailing, faxing people... well I was not sure if we could change either, but I believe we can at least do our best and as you see some people in parliament has conscience and common sense.

Friends, we are almost there, keep going!

Long Live Britain! God save the Queen!

[a11]

so we've got two replies from Mr. Clegg!
nonothing, good reason to update your records.
btw, don't forget about those three MP's who already signed EDM 1912, even though we don't know who actually got in touch with them.