5 years for ILR rule implemented

[a11]

User Sergeyvo from the Russian forum came up with a brilliant analogy to emphasize the retrospective nature of the 4 to 5 change.

He said: Imagine somebody getting a 4-year prison sentence for committing a certain crime. While they are in prison, the law changes and they would now be eligible for a 5-year sentence instead. However, since the court made a decision before the new rules were implemented, they would still serve four, but not five years. However, if the prosecution system worked the way Tony McNulty's office does, the sentense for that person would be automatically extended by one year. Therefore, skilled migrants are treated in this country worse than criminals.

I think we should make use of this analogy and write a collective letter to Mr McNulty mentioning it.

[Kavik]

What an anology? It is 100% true... I don't think Mr McNutt will feel our pain.... such an arrogant man..

User Sergeyvo from the Russian forum came up with a brilliant analogy to emphasize the retrospective nature of the 4 to 5 change.

He said: Imagine somebody getting a 4-year prison sentence for committing a certain crime. While they are in prison, the law changes and they would now be eligible for a 5-year sentence instead. However, since the court made a decision before the new rules were implemented, they would still serve four, but not five years. However, if the prosecution system worked the way Tony McNulty's office does, the sentense for that person would be automatically extended by one year. Therefore, skilled migrants are treated in this country worse than criminals.

I think we should make use of this analogy and write a collective letter to Mr McNulty mentioning it.

[supertiger]

Are we still pareparign any legal actions?

[nonothing]

User Sergeyvo from the Russian forum came up with a brilliant analogy to emphasize the retrospective nature of the 4 to 5 change.

He said: Imagine somebody getting a 4-year prison sentence for committing a certain crime. While they are in prison, the law changes and they would now be eligible for a 5-year sentence instead. However, since the court made a decision before the new rules were implemented, they would still serve four, but not five years. However, if the prosecution system worked the way Tony McNulty's office does, the sentense for that person would be automatically extended by one year. Therefore, skilled migrants are treated in this country worse than criminals.

I think we should make use of this analogy and write a collective letter to Mr McNulty mentioning it.

i would cite another scenario:

you enroll in a 4-year degree course. you've paid all the expensive tuition fees and passed nearly all the tests. all of a sudden the school decides 4 years are not enough for the degree and wants you do one more year's study and pay one more year's tuition fee. otherwise you lose all tuition fees paid in the past 4 years and can't even get a certificate either.

the school says the change does not affect any student's right to remain and study in the school in order to get his/her degree. any student who pays another year's tuition fee and who is continuing in studying will qualify for the degree as before and should have no difficulty in completing the fifth year (since they've already paid that much - they're rich, and done that well in their tests - they're capable and endurable). we're sorry to hear that the students can't get a full time job during the 5th years, therefor they can't have their own career plan and can't pay back their student loan. but that's the employers' policy that they don't pay a part time student full-time salary. the school can't do nothing about it.

what do you say?

[Hidden dragon]

A detailed estimation of the number of WP, HSMP and UK Ancestry visa holders who have been directly affected by the change:

Conclusion: over 100,000 (excluding dependents).

For detailed derivation, follow this link

http://immigrationboards.pochta.ru/No_of_affected.html

[aj77]

It's nice to see a website www.vbsi.org.uk has been launched which will specially focus the issues related to work related catagories.It wont only be discussion forum but also become a voice of Skilled Immigrants in real terms as it's name suggests.You guys have laid the foundation of an organisation which will not only try to resolve the issues but also will fight for the rights of law abiding and tax paying skilled immigrants.

Rohan wrote:

After seeing Mr.Mcnaulty's comments to Christine, I don't see anyway forward talking to him anymore. He ignores every point we are making and have absolutely no concerns about us. It looks like his line of answering will never change and he will never see the problem from our point of view. Even in the House of commons his attitude is quite arrogant from the way he deals with other MPs.
I think we have to trap him some other way. Any suggestions?

Since we are of no importance to him so he doesn't bother to listen to us seriously.We need to realise him about our importance.Only then it is possible that they will think seriously.We already are doing some efforts and and we need to do lot more in this regard.
Now we have our own website too.We can use it effectively too.
i) Still I feel we should join hands with Doctors too as they are also the same victims like us and I believe in, Unity is Strength
By this way our stregth and Importance will increase.
As nonothing mentioned that they are going to send emails and Letters to all Parliamentarians to create awareness of our problems, I think it's very good idea considering more than 50% has signed EDM's.And most of them agreed with us that it is unfair and unjustice to implement these changes retrospictively to us.
Convincing a politician is a bit difficult with logic specially if he would be in power too but I have some suggesstions.

Now we should send reply of his letters not only to him but also to all 646 Parliamentarians so that everybody could judge who is saying write or wrong.Explaining our point of view by this way not only we ll get more attention from more Parliamentarians but also Government can get the feeling that their image is being destroyed by implementing these changes retrospectively and that should be our aim too, to create fear in their minds that by doing this they will loose their popularity as they are already loosing it

We should also send the message that we are not in small number and we are not going to forget it even if couldn't win that battle.We will get ILR one day.But doing unjustice with these 100000 Work related skilled immigrants(approx 200000 as everybody would atleast have a life partner) means not only loosing these 200000 potential voters but also we will convince try our best to convince as much people as we can that this party doesn't have basic ethical priciples.They don't bother even breaking the legal promise.

Now we need to prepare a reply of that letter, being sent to some of our members by Immigration Minister

I have received today a letter from my local MP, Mrs G Jackson with a letter from Mr Tony McNulty attached.
It summarizes as follows:

a. In respect to the paper "Controlling our Borders: the Five ....", during the consultation period between Feb and now the Government has not received any views on the change in the qualifying period for settlement.

b. The change is to line up with other countries.

c. The change does not affect anyone's right to remain and to work in the UK; anyone with valid leave to remain and who is continuing in employment will qualify to remain as before and should have no difficulty in completing the fifth year.

d. UK does not passes retrospective legislation. 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 that you describe (na Ms Jackson) would happen wherever and whatever circumstances we changed the qualifying period.

e. There is sympathy for anyone getting a mortgage but the lending policy of banks ..... is a matter for those organisations. It is not a Government requirement. Similarly, although local authorities have a residence policy when it comes to education there is no substantial change in the way that University places are allocated as a result of our change. Nevertheless, we are ready to listen to you about any unintended hardship that are directly instigated by this change - but for most areas of life, if not all, things will simply continue as usual

[aj77]

a)Government did not consult to actual affectees either.They consulted with some organisation who don't have any interest in us or in our problems.Did they ask anybody that they want to implement 5 year strategy straightway to those people who are going to finsh their 4 years term or are in the process of finshing 4 years?.
We can seee from research details that there was one question (Q.No.12)related to existing Wok related catagories
that whether these changes should be implemented to current Work related catagories and 58% said NO and if they would be told that Government has made legal committment with us ,surely %would be much higher
The link is
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ ... iew=Binary
They discussed mostly tier system to replace the current system ,that system is not implemented yet and the point which they didn't discussed implemented it retrospectively.

b)I also note that that you have quoted the norms established in Directive 2003/109/EC on third-party nationals who are long-term residents of the European Union as a reason to change to a 5-year settlement period. I would like to point out the method of calculation as set out in Article 4 permits applicants to count half of their time spent in the country for the purpose of full-time education towards the five year period provided the applicant is currently now in a category that leads to settlement. No translation of this is apparent in the new immigrant rules published this month. Perhaps it is because the UK is not bound to implement the directive and therefore it is inappropriate to quote it as a reason for changing to a 5-year settlement period.

c)We will work throughout our life even if we will get ILR or not.what do they think?, Skilled persons who are getting good salaries, after getting ILR, will they stop working. to get 50 pound or so as unemplyment allownace?
Yes there is a big difference between work permit and ILR .
Getting ILR of a developed country is an honour and keeping someone away from this privilege unnecessarily is not fair by any means.
Person with ILR can go to any country for as much time as he wants as he is not bound legally to stay here all the time.He can come back at any time and can continue any sort of work as he is not bound to do certain work.
It gives you security that nobody can behave with you like this the way they are behaving with us.
It gives confidence that you are permanent Resident of a developed country and good society.As my experience says that they are very friendly to immigrants.
Can we get all this without getting ILR?.Surely not.So how can they say that it wont affect us
d)UK does not pass retrospective legislation.?
I came under differnt HSMP programme.There were lot of assurances in that policy.This HSMP policy is different.Forcing me to adopt this policy is not retrospective as I am just going to complete my 4 year term?

e) well this statement is just like.

you enroll in a 4-year degree course. you've paid all the expensive tuition fees and passed nearly all the tests. all of a sudden the school decides 4 years are not enough for the degree and wants you do one more year's study and pay one more year's tuition fee. otherwise you lose all tuition fees paid in the past 4 years and can't even get a certificate either.

the school says the change does not affect any student's right to remain and study in the school in order to get his/her degree. any student who pays another year's tuition fee and who is continuing in studying will qualify for the degree as before and should have no difficulty in completing the fifth year (since they've already paid that much - they're rich, and done that well in their tests - they're capable and endurable). we're sorry to hear that the students can't get a full time job during the 5th years, therefor they can't have their own career plan and can't pay back their student loan. but that's the employers' policy that they don't pay a part time student full-time salary. the school can't do nothing about it.

We need to reply his letter with proper justification and should send those replies to all Parliamentarians too.

[aj77]

Residence Requirements

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of people who will be affected by the decision to extend the period of residence for settlement; and if he will make a statement.

A)Mr. McNulty: An assessment has been made based on the number of in-country work related applications for settlement received each year. This indicates that around 45,000 applicants may be affected by the change and will now have to wait a further year for settlement. This estimate has been made subject to certain assumptions; for instance, that applicants who are eligible will apply for settlement at the earliest opportunity, and that the broad pattern of applications will remain the same as before.

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he held with minority ethnic communities about the likely impact of the extension of the residence period for settlement prior to its introduction; what such consultations he has had since its introduction; and if he will make a statement.

B)Mr. McNulty: The change in the minimum qualifying period for settlement affects work permit holders and those coming to the UK for employment. Our discussion of the change has, therefore, reflected this and has been principally with organisations that represent employees irrespective of their nationality or ethnic community. The Home Office has regular contact and discussions on migration and asylum issues with representatives of the minority ethnic communities.

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he held with (a) employers, (b) employers' organisations and (c) employees' organisations representing minority ethnic communities on the effects of the extension of the residency period required for settlement rights; and if he will make a statement.

C)Mr. McNulty: The Home Office has had significant and regular contact with employers and employers' organisations to discuss the future changes to the immigration system since this increase in the minimum qualifying period for settlement was announced on seven February 2005. Between that date and the introduction of the change we received no views from employers on the substance of the policy, and the views that we have received since have been about the effect of the timing on individuals, not on sectors of business or employment. Most of the views we receive from employers in the normal course of events are that skilled workers do not stay with them for long enough, which, of course, is not affected by this change. On consultation about the effect of this change on minority ethnic communities I refer the my hon. Friend to my previous answer.

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the likely effects on (a) the employability of those on work permits, (b) employers of migrant workers and (c) inward investment of the extension of the residency period required for settlement rights in the UK; and if he will make a statement.

D)Mr. McNulty: The change does not affect anyone's right to remain and work in the UK; anyone with valid leave to remain and who is continuing in employment will qualify to remain as before and should have no difficulty in completing the fifth year. It will, therefore, have no affect on the employability of those on work permits since their employability is linked first and foremost to the skills that they possess, whether there is an employer who continues to require those skills, and whether the skills are still not available in the resident labour market. In some cases an employer may have to obtain renewal of a work permit and to pay a fee. We wish to maintain the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for investors. But our assessment is that the length of the qualifying period for settlement is of marginal importance in inward investment decisions compared with economic factors and the specific investment opportunities available. The discussions that we have had with representatives include those who represent individual overseas investors and these discussions have reassured us that the impact of this change on its own is likely to be neutral.

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the merits of transitional arrangements for those affected by the extension of the residency period required for settlement in the UK; what representations he has received on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

E)Mr. McNulty: The Government looked closely at the merits of introducing transitional arrangements for those affected by the increase in the minimum qualifying period for settlement. In deciding not to introduce transitional arrangements the Government took into account, amongst other things, the following: this change does not prevent anyone from doing anything that they are currently doing; it does not limit anyone's time with any employer or reduce their stay in the United Kingdom in any way; and that to introduce transitional arrangements for those who arrived when the qualifying period was four years would mean that a desirable policy would not take effect until 2011.

The Government have received representations from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and from the Chinese Association about the change as a whole and from the Royal College of Nursing about some aspects of it. In addition a small number of individuals have been in contact with the Home Office about their individual cases. We acknowledge that this is will be a disappointing change for those individuals and will provide guidance and advice to those affected

We need to challenge all these policy statements of Mr McNulty with logical reasons and then we will send his policy Statement alongwith our replies to all 646 Parliamentarians.Then everybody would be in a better position to judge who is wrong.

Our aim should be very clear i.e to destroy the image of Mr McNulty and and his party,supporting LibDems for their justified behavior mentioning clearly that we are not small in number.Today we are 2000 or so but this affected group wont stop growing ,even after getting ILR too

[aj77]

Mr. McNulty: An assessment has been made based on the number of in-country work related applications for settlement received each year. This indicates that around 45,000 applicants may be affected by the change and will now have to wait a further year for settlement. This estimate has been made subject to certain assumptions; for instance, that applicants who are eligible will apply for settlement at the earliest opportunity, and that the broad pattern of applications will remain the same as before

But real figures are:

A detailed estimation of the number of WP, HSMP and UK Ancestry visa holders who have been directly affected by the change:

Conclusion: over 100,000 (excluding dependents).

For detailed derivation, follow this link

http://immigrationboards.pochta.ru/No_of_affected.html

This statement is supported by written proof. And they are not small in number to ignore them by any means(these figures include only main applicant and if there would be one dependant atleast with everybody then minimum affected persons would be 200000)

[gaurav]

Good posts AJ77

[tvt]

I think that Clarke (who is now irrelevant) & Mc Nulty have initiated the change to show that they and the Labour party were "tough" on immigration. As they could not really deal with the real problems of illegal migration they have chosen an easy target - the hard working legal migrants.

This Change will not not gain Labour a single vote. On the contrary it will just make all the people affected (ca. 200,000 voters and potential voters) staunch anti-Labour voters.

As I wrote earlier in this forum marginal voters are very important here where the winner in constituency polls takes it all. Take for example the Harrow East consistuency where Mc Nulty was elected. The differnce between Mc Nulty and his next opponent was only some 4,000 votes. This means that if 2,000 marginal voters were to ditch Mc Nulty and vote for his opponent he would be outside office.

It is utterly stupid of Labour to lose so many marginal voters for no real purpose or reason.

[aj77]

frist2last4 wrote:

I hate Tony...............

indian_in_the_uk wrote:

I am really really pissed off now....

Globetrotter wrote:

What goes around, comes around.... I shall shed no tears after his flippant responses to our concerns.

He was commenting on the dismissal of Charles Clark

As we can see from the figures that the total number of people directly affected by these change is estimated to be over 106,000 excluding dependants(And if everybody would have atleast one dependant as his life Partner,totall figures would be exceeding 200,000).This is not a small figure by any means to be ignored easily as these law abiding and tax paying skilled immigrants will be future Permanent Residents of UK and will play a vital role in politics too.I am afraid that Mr Tony McNulty and his teams acts are preparing minds who have the feeling of being cheated and betrayed and as a result feel hatred for him and his party.This wont be a positive mental developement by any means and could have severe consequences on the society as a whole, Particularly for the ruling party which is already loosing it's popularity, as these affected skilled Immigrants will be future potential voters and can decide the fate of some of future Parliamentarians and sometimes few votes can change the winning position into losing side.I personally feel we need to send messages to Prime minister Tony Blair and his party members specially that Mr McNulty's acts are very dangerous for his party as these are not based on justice and ethical values. Charles Clarke is gone now it's better to get rid of Tony McNulty as early as possible if Tony Blair want to save his party'r reputation, ask other collegues to listen other's greiviences seriously and make the rules which will be based on justice and ethical values. We need to inform other Parliamentarians too that developing such minds by these acts could have severe consequences on a society as whole too so it's their moral duty to stop him from these acts.

[aj77]

E)Mr. McNulty: The Government looked closely at the merits of introducing transitional arrangements for those affected by the increase in the minimum qualifying period for settlement. In deciding not to introduce transitional arrangements the Government took into account, amongst other things, the following: this change does not prevent anyone from doing anything that they are currently doing; it does not limit anyone's time with any employer or reduce their stay in the United Kingdom in any way; and that to introduce transitional arrangements for those who arrived when the qualifying period was four years would mean that a desirable policy would not take effect until 2011

We don't agree with Tony McNulty's statement, the thing which Government took into account is not of prime importance as we will continue working throughout our life whether we ll get ILR or not.
Yes there is a big difference between work permit and ILR .
Getting ILR of a developed country is an honour and keeping someone away from this privilege unnecessarily is not fair by any means.
Person with ILR can go to any country for as much time as he wants as he is not bound legally to stay here all the time.He can come back at any time and can continue any sort of work as he is not bound to do certain work.
It gives you security that nobody can behave with you like the way they are behaving with us.
It gives confidence that you are permanent Resident of a developed country and good society.
work permit holders can't do their own business while having ILR you can do that.
You can get financial facility from Banks easily if You have ILR as compared to having work permit only.

Most importantly their act of retrospective implementation on the existing Visa holders, without consulting with anybody, shattered our confidence and we feel ourselves to be insecure and in an uncertain situation.Breaking the legal Committments like this way can't be ignored either.Keep in mind whatever they consulted is a tier system to replace current system and during reseach period it was being told to them by majority that current Visa holders should not be included in it either.

to introduce transitional arrangements for those who arrived when the qualifying period was four years would mean that a desirable policy would not take effect until 2011

We strongly disagree with that statement Government can start implementing it's policies from today's date.Implement the tier system whenever they'd like and give the five year settlement notice to anyone who comes today.But don't disturb the people who came in the past on some legal committments.
Desirable policy will not take into effect untill 2011.

It is baseless statement if he is talking about policy of tier system.Current Visa holders didn't come in that tier system either.so they should be excluded according to the feedback they received

[Hidden dragon]

Agree with aj77 and tvt!

Based on the analysis, we have the reason to believe that we can gain support from many politicians who care about the future of their party.

About 3/4 of the 200,000 will be voting in the next general election in 2009/2010 (2002 to qualify in 2007, 2003 in 2008 and 2004 in 2009).

It will be helpful if based on aj77 and tvt's analysis some can write a short article stressing the potential importance of over 150,000 voters to the Labour (and opposition) parties. Title of the article "Labour, Can You Afford It?"

I think Tony Blair might and might not care (because he will not run the next election), but Gordon Brown, David Camaron and Menzies Campbell might.

I wonder how many party members does BNP have? 10k?

[seff_efrican]

Labour took a beating this past local elections - does anyone have numbers on how many WP/HSMP holders are Commonwealth Citizens (who hopefully all voted!!) to demonstrate any impact we could already have made? This could add weight to "what might happen next time" when we all have ILR...

[a11]

Can I ask you to have a look at the draft of petition to Blair and/or Reid (http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... e073423599)
and let me know a) whether you'd like to sign it and b) what would you like to change in it. I think such a long explanatory letter does not have to be signed by too many people (although the more the better of course), so I think we will be sending it quite soon.

[aj77]

a11,
It's impressive and effective petition.Still lot can be done to improve it.But I would suggest you to become a member of VBSI Team as you are competent, confident and committed guy.VBSI need you at this moment.Working as a team would be more effective as compared to working idividually.As nonothing mentioned that they are going to send letters to all Parliamentarians,I would request you either to wait for their letter or contact them straightaway as it would be just a duplication to prepare another petition.

Your Petition should now become the part of research material of VBSI as they should be making notes of every effective post.

I would request every affectee whether he want to participate effectively or not to become a member of VBSI team as sometimes total Number of members worth a lot too.Once they would be talking with higher officials of Government they can show how many members they represent.
www.vbsi.org.uk

[a11]

aj77,

yes, you can consider this draft petition as my contribution to VBSI. Unfortunately I am quite busy now finishing my PhD and I do not have time for more regular contributions. But if you want to amend it in any way, send me your suggestions and I'll be happy to incorporate them preserving the style etc.

I would very much like it if my draft could serve as a basis for whatever petitions are going to be sent to the authorities. The only thing I would not want to happen is for it to simply get lost in heaps of many other drafts and proposals.

Another thing which I do not think is a great idea is trying to threaten the authorities with how many voices they are going to lose if they don't listen to us. I think at this moment a better strategy would be to pose as extremely loyal people - and not too united as a community - who plea to the government to listen to their voices. Otherwise we can be considered as potential danger straight away and written off to a similar category as religious extremists etc., for whom the government's policy is not very sympathetic.

[aj77]

You have given your views and every comment which will help us resolving our problem will be appreciated whether it is positive criticism or any other suggesstion.
Right now it is difficult to give some suggesstions , it would be better if you could wait for some days.You ll get lot of material like this.

[supertiger]

I notice our online petition is increasing quickly in the last few days:
http://www.petitiononline.com/ILR45/petition.html

[RobinLondon]

Alright, I'm now officially discouraged. I assume most of you know about my correspondence with the previous Home Secretary Charles Clarke.

Just so you can remember, here is an extract from the first e-mail I sent to him in February 2005:

...Following the provisions announced by the Home Secretary yesterday, I have two questions. The first is whether the provision for UK ancestry will now be abolished subject to the Government's intention to initiate a "four tier" system of vetting migrants. Secondly, as I have been allowed into the country under the previous rules of four years' working allowing one to apply for ILR, will I now have to wait until I complete five years as put forth by the Home Secretary? This creates a strange situation as I would now have to apply for an additional one year's leave at £355 only to apply the following year for ILR at another £355 or more.

Please do let me know if (1) the provisions of the UK Ancestry scheme are intended by this Government to continue and (2) if the rules under which one previously entered the country will continue to apply to applicants already in the process leading to settlement...

This was Charles Clarke's response in May 2005:

...The provisions of the UK ancestry scheme on which Mr ... entered the United Kingdom will continue to apply. Mr ... will be eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom shortly before his current leave expires...

Following the announcement by Mr Clarke of the four-to-five implementation in March 2005, we had another series of exchanges in which he basically reversed his position.

This is his most recent letter, dated 28 Apr 2006:

...Mr ... was advised in my letter dated 24 May 2005 that the provisions of the UK ancestry scheme under which Mr ... had entered the UK would still apply. This was in response to his question of whether the UK ancestry scheme would be abolished under the new provision for the points-based system. The points-based system covers almost all routes to enter the UK to work, train or study. It does not cover asylum or other areas such as family reunification, visitors, European Community Association Agreement settlement and UK ancestry.

As confirmed in a previous letter [April 2006], Mr ... should apply for further leave to remain on the basis of UK ancestry near the expiry date of his leave to remain in order to meet the 5-year qualifying period for settlement. Once he has completed five years in this category, he will under the current immigration rules be eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain. There are no plans to extend the qualifying period for ILR under UK ancestry again at the present time...

I don't know how I'm going to proceed at this point. I'm just providing this information to all of you here to see what we're facing. The Home Office have an answer for everything and are able to twist ink to say what they want it to say in opposition to reality. I need to think about what I'm going to do next, if anything.

Best,

R

[supertiger]

From the letter my MP forwarded to me sent from HO it is clear that HO simply copy and paste the contents, such as something like morgage and tuition fee, I didn;t even mention them in my letter to MP... I really think taking them to court is the only hope now. Winning more MPs is one thing but EDM is only a soft way to gain sympathy, HO is still the place to make immigration policy... ("Whilst EDMs are not expected to be debated on the floor of the House, they can attract a great deal of publicity to a particular issue, both within Parliament and, if reported by the National or Regional Press, amongst the general public. ") So to somewhere like HO we definitely need at least two means - hard and soft, to make them change.

[nonothing]

Latest updates from Christine Lee's team

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just a short update about the meeting Christine had with Tony McNulty last week. The meeting went well and Tony McNulty has agreed to meet with Christine in person once she gets back from China. We consider this to be a step forward as previously, we we referred to civil servants and policy advisors. Being able to talk to the person who makes the decisions is a significant tactical opportunity and we hope we will be able to press our cause.

Door to Door Campaigning in Harrow this weekend

Mr McNulty is MP for Harrow. As an MP, Mr McNulty is honour bound to listen to the concerns of his constituents and for obvious reasons, it is perhaps understandable that he will consider their concerns very carefully because they voted for him.

For that reason, we are thinking of organising a small party to go door to door in Harrow this Saturday, targeting restaurants and takeaways so we can get constituent letters to Tony McNulty so he can see how the rules are affecting his constituents. I’m trying to figure out the logistics at the moment, because I think it would be unfeasible for us to lug laptops and printers through Harrow town centre. If anyone lives in or near Harrow and would like to help, please let me know. Any suggestions would be more than welcome.

Petition

On the petition side, thank you very much for the petitions that have been coming in. We have received several hundred more petitions and we are close to achieving our target for the petition to hand to Andrew Dismore. After Harrow this weekend, I expect us to exceed our target but it is still good to keep the petition going because we are still aiming to get a petition together to present to Downing Street but we will need at least 10,000 petitions. These can be any format but they have to have the petitioner’s name, address, telephone number and so on. I would suggest using the existing proforma and getting more people to sign them.

Briefing

Now that the briefing for the Lords has been done, we will now circulate a House of Commons version (though this will be more detailed). If you have any interesing case studies of people who can’t travel to other countries because of their work permit status, like getting Visas to the US and stuff.

The reason why is because this type of restriction is a real and had direct effect on people’s lives and it is something that the Home office cannot easily argue against. If we also emphasise this effect, then we have one more angle with which to pressure the government, and this one hits a persons freedom of mobility.

For all the updates from Christine Lee's team:
http://www.vbsi.org.uk/index.php?page=navleft_1col

[nonothing]

Door to Door Campaigning in Harrow this weekend

Mr McNulty is MP for Harrow. As an MP, Mr McNulty is honour bound to listen to the concerns of his constituents and for obvious reasons, it is perhaps understandable that he will consider their concerns very carefully because they voted for him.

For that reason, we are thinking of organising a small party to go door to door in Harrow this Saturday, targeting restaurants and takeaways so we can get constituent letters to Tony McNulty so he can see how the rules are affecting his constituents. I’m trying to figure out the logistics at the moment, because I think it would be unfeasible for us to lug laptops and printers through Harrow town centre. If anyone lives in or near Harrow and would like to help, please let me know. Any suggestions would be more than welcome.

i think it's great idea. now i'm wondering how many of us are from Harrow? How many of us can join the mini campaign even if they're not from Harrow? How many of us can pass the information to the people in Harrow? remember "every little helps"?

For more details, please contact Christine Lee's team:

Lok
Christine Lee & Co Solicitors
86 Holloway Head
Birmingham
West Midlands
B1 1NB

Tel: 0121 666 6228
Fax: 0121 666 6993

[supertiger]

regarding the case study, I never think the morgate/ tuition or visa to other countries are the fundamental difficulties... and politicians don;t care this kind of difficulty at all, instead they will be interested to see how we can solve their difficulties. Such as WP holders cannot run business, so if someone plans to do so it can bring some local employment (if you are prepared to risk...). if we can bring some business plans will be good, something realistic, needs some skills, non-catering preferrable, enclose a few 3-5 year future accounting sheets will be convincing. Hopefully we have someone among us have such plans, otherwise all MBA students have to do one... These plans don;t need to be perfect, but they will represent nice pictures that the politicians desire.