5 years for ILR rule implemented

[Eugene_UK]

How do I wish and I am sure all of us that C. Clarke will be finally fired.
Instead of dealing with criminals and removing illegal immigrants from this country he found an easy target - those waiting for ILR and some security.
Please read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4944164.stm

I pray to God to punish those who assaulted hard working, polite and intelligent WP and HSMP holders with shameless retrospective change! Time has come, Mt Clarke

[morerightsformigrants]

stressful indeed mate. every bloody minute

At least for WP holders ILR is very important. 2 years back i was forced for a job change. I got return calls for most of the jobs i applied, all consultants praised my CV, but got interview/test call only for 30%.

On one occasion, with a bluechip i got thru all stage but finally they refused based on the fact that they have to sponser my WP. Finally i've got an employer where my secondary skills matched (funny though ).

Also i'm really gutted due to this change. From personal prespective i'm settled in this country in every aspects other than security of permenant residency. You guys know how much stressful every day for me , feeling not secure here.

[a11]

Two more LibDem MPs signed EDM 1992: Tom Brake and Lorely Burt.
The Overseas Doctors EDM 1989 has already got 29 signatures.

[morerightsformigrants]

do you think it is a good idea to try to team up with the overseas Doctors..?

any suggestions...?

Two more LibDem MPs signed EDM 1992: Tom Brake and Lorely Burt.
The Overseas Doctors EDM 1989 has already got 29 signatures.

[sowhat]

I want to send another letter to my MP and I am wondering, how people usually address an MP: Dear Mr. X, or Dear Sir or something else. It does not really matter but I wonder if there is any convention?

Also which EDM should we ask them to sign: 1992 or 1912?

[aj77]

I think overseas Doctors has been affected most by this retrospective change.It's not easy to get work permit for overseas Doctors as already local and EU doctors are available for the junior posts.Some of them will have to wind up from here.As most of them invested lot of money already for the better future it wont be easy for them to go back with empty hands.

We should accept and realise that they are getting media attention and sympathies of Parliamentarians more as compared to ILR affectees.I personally feel we should immidiately join our hands with them as we are also the victims of retrospective change.

HSMP and work permit holders can survive this retrospective change of 1 year but it's real consequences will occur when English Language test and other requirements will be added to qualify for ILR.Due to those changes, some work permit holders wont qualify for ILR even after staying here for 5 years.

Considering the long -term consequences of this retrospective change for ILR affectees,it's necessary to join hands with Overseas Doctors who are the immidiate affecties of this change.By joing them not only our strength will increase, we will get the media attention too but also there is a possiblity that changes for Overseas Doctors may be withdrawn because of it's severe nature as some of the Doctors will badly hurt by it's immidiate implentation and they also raised the same question that legal obligations are not being fulfilled before making those changes and we also have the same objection too.And if they failed then we should not expect any sort of conession from Government in our case.I mean there fulure could lead to our failure too.

We should also write to Parliamentary Ombudsman. They can often overrule parliament.

We should also think with the consultation of doctors about writing to Parliament Ombudsman seriously.It will be much esier for us after joing with Overseas Doctors.Doctors also have the support of organisation from Indian Community which has more than 25000 members.Once Chineese community which is leading our campaign joins Indians community,surely our success chances would increase

Secondly we should be clear from legal point of view that how strong our case is by discussing with lawers about:

i)It's retrospective nature.As Government doesn't accept it as retrospective we need the opinion of senior Lawers.
ii) The importance of committment, Government made with HSMP applicants in HSMP guidance policy.Does it have any legal value or this can be turned down as Home Sectretary turned down his own signed Letter to RobinLondon(in which he committed that these changes wont affect Current Visa holders)
iii)“

A final RIA must be laid in the House alongside legislation and published on your department's website whether or not there will be legislation. You will not secure collective ministerial agreement to proceed without an adequate RIA.”

they breached their own code of conduct

Can we win the case on these three conditions alongwith different hardshipd cases being discussed over here?

Thirdly,Christine Lee should make contacts with LiBDem Parliamentarians to discuss the ways of stopping Government from doing this.

We should also focus all 646 Parliamentarian so that atleast they should be aware of our serious concerns.To achieve this somebody should send email Petitions to all Parliamentarians on behalf of those who don't have access to internet and sent the paper Petitions to Christine Lee.
I mean we should achieve this target with some plan not only requesting on the board,as we already have more than 1000 Paper petitions.We should use those to send this message to every Parliamentarian.

[TotalZone]

I agree..

You said it what i fear..
After the introduction of tier system, some work permit holders wont qualify for ILR even after staying here for 5 years.

It is as unfair as with the doctors, as a person who came to this country two weeks before will have a british passport by 2007 spring and the one who came 2 weeks later would still be strugling for WP extension for current job / to find an employer who would be ready to process his work permit.

[Hidden dragon]

I want to send another letter to my MP and I am wondering, how people usually address an MP: Dear Mr. X, or Dear Sir or something else. It does not really matter but I wonder if there is any convention?

Also which EDM should we ask them to sign: 1992 or 1912?

To Mr/Mrs/Ms First Name Surename,
Dear First name,
.......
1992 I think

[Hidden dragon]

I mean we should achieve this target with some plan not only requesting on the board,
We should also consult with doctors for future strategy to achieve the common goal

Agree!

[gaurav]

I sent an email to my local MP Mr Jim Cousins on 21st April and had a postal reply today.His reply was very weird so I have written again to see him personally.I am posting my email and his reply as under.

My Email:

Respected Sir,

As you would be aware that Parliament has passed the changes in
Immigration rules(HC 1016)on 30/03/06.According to this all immigrants related
to work related catagories i.e HSMP/Work permit holders etc can apply
for ILR after 5 years now instead of 4 years.The implementation on this
policy has been started from 03/04/06 retrospectively.

I don t have any objection on this policy as it might be in best
interest of UK, my only objection is about it's retrospective implementation.

As we were told when we chose to enter this country that we would be
qualified for ILR after 4 yrs if we satisfied all the criteria set forth.
The retrospective implementation of this proposed change has a number
of negative effects on the practical life of people who entered under
the old rules and have faithfully satisfied the stringent rules for
approval of Further Leave to Remain (ability to get mortgages on residential
property, children's ability to study at UK universities, etc.), but
the principle involved goes far beyond the practical problems.

We are neither refugees nor asylum seekers, but Highly Skilled people
who felt we were entering into a contract by choosing to come here under
the stated conditions at the time we applied. We are shocked and
dismayed that, having kept our part of the bargain, we see the more powerful
party changing the rules of the game. We understand the wish to change
the rules to make you more in line with European norms, and to create a
more coherent long-term immigration policy; but any such changes should
in fairness only apply to new applicants, people who choose to migrate
to the UK knowing what the (new) rules are. Retrospective changing of
the rules is unfair, in civil contracts illegal, and to our minds not in
keeping with what we imagined was the British sense of fair play.

As legal skilled immigrants in the UK, we came here because we like
this country and its people. Once here, we become ambassadors for the UK
in our countries of origin. We work hard and want to integrate into
society, but this sudden retrospective change, without anything like proper
consultation, makes us have doubts about the wisdom of our choice. We
are convinced that other persons having the sort of skills that the
Government itself says the country needs, and especially the most qualified
amongst them (who definitely have a choice as to where to go), will
think twice about signing on to a programme where the rules can be changed
without notice, retrospectivelyy and without appeal. To alienate us may
be an acceptable side effect to a desirable policy change; to alienate
thousands of potential high-quality migrants bringing badly needed
entrepreneurial and other skills would seem to be bad policy indeed.
I hope you would agree with my concerns about retrospective
implementation of these changes and will discuss this issue with your fellow
Parliamentarians and immigration Minister and will try to convince them
about side effects of retrospective implementation so that changes should
be implemented to those who know at the time of entering in the UK about
these changes.

I look forward for your reply.Thank you

Regards
XXXXX

His Reply:

Dear Mr XXXx

Thankyou for contacting me about immigration policy.This is a very important matter and thankyou for raising it with me.

This letter is an acknowledment that your letter has been received.Please note the new e-mail address shown above.

I'd also like you to know that I(and my staff) are committed to Data Protection principles .People sometimes how I keep information .This will be in a paper file.Some information may be recorded electronically as well.If you wish to see this at any time,please let me know in writing.

I generally try to keep in touch with people who contact me, and sometimes send on further information.I am enclosing details of my advice sessions .My advice sessions are a way in which you can speak to me in person.But, if you think you may have a problem of access,let me know .I will then make arrangements to see you.

Yours Sincerely

Jim Cousins
Labour MP for Newcastle Central


As the reply was quiet weird and absurd ,I have written again to him requesting for a personal appointment. I would like you guys to give me some input on how I can use this meeting effectively.

Apologies to post such a big post.

[ansaggart]

Mate,

This reply is not worth the paper was written on. It's sad joke. I am sure that if you are to write him about the grey squirrel v the red one you'll get exactly the same message.

A

[likewise]

it seems to me a computer generated standard acknowledgement letter

[nonothing]

There is a Action Plan and an Overall Strategy (see below). What we need is people, at least 12. We have got about 3 people who are doing their job according to the plan (nonothing is collecting MPs replies, rooi_ding is contacting Tory and Lib Dem leaders and media people, and I am trying to create the words for the poster). The progress is very slowly though....

I need half-an-hour from veryone of you. Please help! We must go on!

By the way, I guess you all enjoyed today's news headlines. I think C Clarke is falling. We should plan for the post-Clarke period, when there might be new opportunities.

come on guys, it's time for action!

you can either give some advices to improve the plan or do something for the plan.

[rg1]

I got this reply from MP

==================
Dear ####

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
==================

[morerightsformigrants]

got this from another forum interesting:



Lord DHOLAKIA has now agreed to be the spoke person for the campaign in the House of Lord. He is the Deputy Leader for Liberal Democrats and their Spokesperson for Home Affairs. He will tries to rally support for the campaign in the House of Lord.

http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?l ... y&id=26795

Also

Andrew Dismore MP has agreed to be the spokeperson for the campaign in the House of Common. He is the Labour MP in Hendon and the Chair of the Chinese in Britain All Party Parliamentary Group.

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/A ... 2247AC.htm

He will try to raise the issue in the common, but will need a new petition for it. Christine will now draft a new form so Mr Dismore can get the issue raised in the common. The new petition will also be presented to HO. He will attend the meeting tonight and explain how the campaign can support his action.

And

Dr John May, a consultant for the metropolitan police will also attend the meeting to explain how the Chinese Community can raise the profile and get into the mainstream society through community participation and politics.

Dr John May


--------------------
Spectrum Radio Cantonese Programme broadcast daily between 6-7pm on 558AM and online http://558.net

If you have any suggestions for our programmes, please email me on joseph.DJ@558.net 遊說政府行動參考文件檔


let's keep it up guys

I got this reply from MP

==================
Dear ####

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
==================

[sowhat]

got this from another forum interesting:



Lord DHOLAKIA has now agreed to be the spoke person for the campaign in the House of Lord. He is the Deputy Leader for Liberal Democrats and their Spokesperson for Home Affairs. He will tries to rally support for the campaign in the House of Lord.

http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?l ... y&id=26795

Also

Andrew Dismore MP has agreed to be the spokeperson for the campaign in the House of Common. He is the Labour MP in Hendon and the Chair of the Chinese in Britain All Party Parliamentary Group.

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/A ... 2247AC.htm

He will try to raise the issue in the common, but will need a new petition for it. Christine will now draft a new form so Mr Dismore can get the issue raised in the common. The new petition will also be presented to HO. He will attend the meeting tonight and explain how the campaign can support his action.

And

Dr John May, a consultant for the metropolitan police will also attend the meeting to explain how the Chinese Community can raise the profile and get into the mainstream society through community participation and politics.

Dr John May


--------------------
Spectrum Radio Cantonese Programme broadcast daily between 6-7pm on 558AM and online http://558.net

If you have any suggestions for our programmes, please email me on joseph.DJ@558.net 遊說政府行動參考文件檔


let's keep it up guys

I got this reply from MP

==================
Dear ####

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
==================

the meeting mentioned here, is it tonight conference at SOHO Outreach Centre?

[morerightsformigrants]

yes, mate

got this from another forum interesting:



Lord DHOLAKIA has now agreed to be the spoke person for the campaign in the House of Lord. He is the Deputy Leader for Liberal Democrats and their Spokesperson for Home Affairs. He will tries to rally support for the campaign in the House of Lord.

http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?l ... y&id=26795

Also

Andrew Dismore MP has agreed to be the spokeperson for the campaign in the House of Common. He is the Labour MP in Hendon and the Chair of the Chinese in Britain All Party Parliamentary Group.

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/A ... 2247AC.htm

He will try to raise the issue in the common, but will need a new petition for it. Christine will now draft a new form so Mr Dismore can get the issue raised in the common. The new petition will also be presented to HO. He will attend the meeting tonight and explain how the campaign can support his action.

And

Dr John May, a consultant for the metropolitan police will also attend the meeting to explain how the Chinese Community can raise the profile and get into the mainstream society through community participation and politics.

Dr John May


--------------------
Spectrum Radio Cantonese Programme broadcast daily between 6-7pm on 558AM and online http://558.net

If you have any suggestions for our programmes, please email me on joseph.DJ@558.net 遊說政府行動參考文件檔


let's keep it up guys

I got this reply from MP

==================
Dear ####

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
==================

the meeting mentioned here, is it tonight conference at SOHO Outreach Centre?

[mahin1110]

Hi!
I want to make a point regarding retrospective effect of new rules. You already know that when Home Office issued HSMP approval letter during 1st extension they mentioned that we would be qualified for ILR after 3 years ( 1+3= total 4 years). My point is: is this not a written commitment? Can we show those written commitments made by HO to individuals during Ms Lee's proposed meeting with minister or in Court (if required)? Quoting the letter we can clearly demonstrate that the new rules gives retrospective effect for ILR. However, it seems to me that Home Office can not make their case during Court battle, although this is not our current strategy.

Thanks

[cantab]

Hi!
I want to make a point regarding retrospective effect of new rules. You already know that when Home Office issued HSMP approval letter during 1st extension they mentioned that we would be qualified for ILR after 3 years ( 1+3= total 4 years). My point is: is this not a written commitment? Can we show those written commitments made by HO to individuals during Ms Lee's proposed meeting with minister or in Court (if required)? Quoting the letter we can clearly demonstrate that the new rules gives retrospective effect for ILR. However, it seems to me that Home Office can not make their case during Court battle, although this is not our current strategy.

Thanks

I think the most effective challenge to retrospective application will come from a court case, if the proposals are not thrown out of the commons. with a system based on precedent, there is no way retrospective application of any legislation will be upheld in court. but someone needs to challenge this. with no challenge there is no case. i have 1.5 years till my 4 years are filled.

[cantab]

a wrote this letter to my tory MP. is there anything else we should be/could be doing?

Dear Mr Hunt,

It has come to my attention that while failing to track, not to mention deport some 900 plus illegal immigrants who have committed crimes and were in HM custody, the Home Office have proposed to retrospectively enforce new rules concerning the length of stay that is required of non-EU nationals that are working here legally before they can apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

Traditionally, a non-EU national on a work permit in the UK needed to live and work here for 4 years before they could apply for removal of conditions on their stay in the country (settlement). The rather interesting issue with HC1016 (laid before Parliament on 30 March 2006) is that while it increases this period to 5 years for all new arrivals with work permits, it also applies to those who came to the UK in categories leading to settlement before these new rules were drawn. In other words, it appears that the Home Office are seeking to apply new legislation retrospectively. While this will have a short-term effect of reducing the number of people granted settlement in the UK, and thus perhaps help the HO with their targets, it seems to me that the HO have chosen to pick at the economically most productive members of the immigrant community while failing to tackle illegal immigration.

Again, it seems to me that a greater distinction needs to be made between economically beneficial and regulated migration, which aims to attract highly skilled individuals and those entering the UK illegally. While HC1016 introduces some interesting ideas to that end, I do not think that retrospective application of legislation does much to increase faith in the Government.

There are two EDMs that I am aware of that have been drawn to oppose the above changes: EDM 1992 and 1912.

I would love to hear your views on the subject,
Sincerely and wish best regards,

[tutu1005]

hi, guys,

hope it is not too late. here is another meeting taking place lead by Christain Lee. Althought it is mainly focusing on Chinese community, you are highly welcomed to come. Let us make changes.

is anyone going to Christine's meeting on Thursday 27th of April?

Venue: Soho Outreach Centre
166A Shaftesbury Avenue, London, WC2H 8JB

Time: 7pm-9.30pm

MAP:

[ansaggart]

All,

I believe that we should write to the press (i.e. Channel 4 News) putting the current immigration scandal with the convicted foreigners in contrast to tougher immigration rules for law obedient people like HSMP and WP.

What do you think?

A

[tobiashomer]

I don't think we really want to link our story with that of convicted foreign criminals, even if our main pooint is the difference. In the popular mind "foreigners are foreigners" and "tougher is better" and I have no confidence that the distinction (so obvious and important to us) will be perceptible to people with no special interest in an intelligent and fair immigration policy.

it is with MPs, especially those with some interest in or responsibility for immigration, and and most especially Labour ones, that we will stand or fall. And with every week that goes by with no real progress and new stories about horrid foreigners and HO officials who the press has decided are too weak on them, things look more and more bleak.

[tobiashomer]

The HO do not see such letters as binding; I wrote the official who signed mine asking if it would be honoured, and got a form response that the rules had changed. Besides working the MPs, a court case might indeed be the best or only way forward. Has anyone got legal advice about how to take this to court? Perhaps by applying for ILR after 4 years' residence and protesting the rejection? who would be the guinea pig for that one?!

Hi!
I want to make a point regarding retrospective effect of new rules. You already know that when Home Office issued HSMP approval letter during 1st extension they mentioned that we would be qualified for ILR after 3 years ( 1+3= total 4 years). My point is: is this not a written commitment? Can we show those written commitments made by HO to individuals during Ms Lee's proposed meeting with minister or in Court (if required)? Quoting the letter we can clearly demonstrate that the new rules gives retrospective effect for ILR. However, it seems to me that Home Office can not make their case during Court battle, although this is not our current strategy.

Thanks

I think the most effective challenge to retrospective application will come from a court case, if the proposals are not thrown out of the commons. with a system based on precedent, there is no way retrospective application of any legislation will be upheld in court. but someone needs to challenge this. with no challenge there is no case. i have 1.5 years till my 4 years are filled.

[sowhat]

The HO do not see such letters as binding; I wrote the official who signed mine asking if it would be honoured, and got a form response that the rules had changed. Besides working the MPs, a court case might indeed be the best or only way forward. Has anyone got legal advice about how to take this to court? Perhaps by applying for ILR after 4 years' residence and protesting the rejection? who would be the guinea pig for that one?!

Hi!
I want to make a point regarding retrospective effect of new rules. You already know that when Home Office issued HSMP approval letter during 1st extension they mentioned that we would be qualified for ILR after 3 years ( 1+3= total 4 years). My point is: is this not a written commitment? Can we show those written commitments made by HO to individuals during Ms Lee's proposed meeting with minister or in Court (if required)? Quoting the letter we can clearly demonstrate that the new rules gives retrospective effect for ILR. However, it seems to me that Home Office can not make their case during Court battle, although this is not our current strategy.

Thanks

I think the most effective challenge to retrospective application will come from a court case, if the proposals are not thrown out of the commons. with a system based on precedent, there is no way retrospective application of any legislation will be upheld in court. but someone needs to challenge this. with no challenge there is no case. i have 1.5 years till my 4 years are filled.

my lawyer mentioned that it can cost tens thousand pounds...