HSMP-changes - epetition reply

[milz]

Hi all,

please follow the link below for the Government's e-petition response of the recent HSMP changes:

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12793.asp

thanks,

Milz.

[bani]

I'm really disappointed that the response from the PM didn't address the 4 to 5 year change, which is a major change in the scheme. I really feel I'm being fleeced for more fees with this additional year and requirements.

[apeterso925]

Hi all,

please follow the link below for the Government's e-petition response of the recent HSMP changes:

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12793.asp

thanks,

Milz.

I actually found that to be a very well thought out and reasonable response. My initial HSMP visa is not a guarantee to settlement, it is unreasonable for me to expect that based on my current visa, I am guaranteed a future visa.

If that were the case, then why bother with the extension process? Why not just let us settle from the getgo? Answer: because the UK government wants to take time to evaluate your skills and your contributions to its economy and its people before it grants you full rights as a citizen.

I'm just as concerned as everyone else that in 2 years, I may have to leave under the new rules. But it does me no good to fixate on the supposed injustices of the new system, focusing my energy on that instead of my career and my chances of staying.

The HSMP visa is not a charity system done out of pure altruism, it was the UK's attempt to bring in new talent to bolster their economy. The government's main concern seems to be (and should be, in my opinion) its own citizens.

I feel, quite strongly, that it is unreasonable (and frankly, useless) for an immigrant to expect his/her wants and needs to be placed above the needs of a country's citizens.

We have all *chosen* to participate in this program, knowing full well that citizenship is not a guarantee until that citizenship in actually in our hands.

And lest anyone wonder why I don't just be quiet and let others whine away Please keep in mind that we are all representatives of this program. When you act unreasonably "as an HSMP visa holder," you take all of us down with you.

Though I may very well be on the slow boat back to America in 2 years, I cannot expect the UK to let me stay if I do not fit their criteria of highly-skilled, whatever those criteria may be.

[bani]

Atruism?? Charity??? At £335 application fee + EC fee + ever-increasing renewal fees? Are you aware that the HO has raised prices twice in the last two 1/2 years? That they changed the rules twice in the last 2 years? That the HO has lost two cases where individuals appealed their HSMP extension rejection because of "legitimate expectation"?

I just want the HO to honour the terms under which I came into this country under HSMP, it's not like the old point system was easy. I know I can't get the last 3 years of my life back.

[VictoriaS]

This response contains one statement which is inaccurate...

..."an initial grant of leave under the HSMP does not create the expectation of a further grant. "

This is being challenged in the courts, and at each stage the government have lost, in that the courts have said that there was an expectation of further leave providing the applicant fitted the criteria for extension as it was at the time of their application.

We will wait and see what happens, but my money is on the HSMP applicants to win this one.


Victoria

[Edelweiss]

Sorry but Highly Skilled is not the same as Highly Paid!! Yes it is possible in certain employment categories to earn huge salaries IF you live in London, but if you choose to live in another part of the country you are probably not going to earn those huge salaries. Doesn't make you less of an asset to the economy, just someone living in a different place.

The issue of transitional arrangements is also a lie because if you switch to a WP the time that you have already spent in the country on the HSMP scheme doesn't count any longer. So you will still have to apply for FLR at some point and may have to spend up to 9 years in the country before you can get ILR.

There is also a big gap between the salary levels at each point level for those applying for the first time and those applying for FLR.

Other countries with points based systems do proper checks of migrants and have a very robust system to ensure that they allow only the most sought after people in in the first place and then give them the right to settle from the get-go. They do not have low criteria for entry with very little in the way of checks and balances (medical, police clearance, etc) and then kick them out after two years.

Finally, many of us fell between the rule changes and that simply grossly unfair. I applied for my FLR in Feb last year and was given 3 years. Had I applied after 6 April 2006, I would have been given 4 years. It is simply a question on 2 months difference in application time, but it changes the rest of my life. I don't think that applying pre or post 6 April makes you a better or worse potential resident of the country. It is a matter of luck.

The HO is simply rehashing the same little speech over and over and are obviously not interested in the impact on people's lives. Fine, that's their prerogative and as long as the British economy is strong, it will be fine because lots of people will take the places of those that have been kicked out.

Do you already have a job that pays enough to get your FLR? Don't be so smug if you don't.

Also (sorry, having a bit of a rant here, but I am very upset about all this) I would not have left a good job and a good life and come over here had there not been the reasonable expectation of settlement. I looked at all the facts before making my decision. So my decision to change everything in my life was based on the expectation that the rules under which I entered the country would be honoured.

Sorry guys - will stop whining now. I won't qualify for FLR, so I have to start packing and I am sad and upset.

[apeterso925]

This response contains one statement which is inaccurate...

..."an initial grant of leave under the HSMP does not create the expectation of a further grant. "

This is being challenged in the courts, and at each stage the government have lost, in that the courts have said that there was an expectation of further leave providing the applicant fitted the criteria for extension as it was at the time of their application.

We will wait and see what happens, but my money is on the HSMP applicants to win this one.


Victoria

Victoria,

This is the second time you have misquoted me. I would appreciate it if you would stop! It muddies your own point when you resort to falsifying statements. The quote above is not what I said. We create our OWN expectations, so that cannot be controlled by outside forces.

THIS is what I said:

"My initial HSMP visa is not a guarantee to settlement, it is unreasonable for me to expect that based on my current visa, I am guaranteed a future visa. "

And I stand by that. My visa is currently stamped with a stamp that expires in 2009. Therefore, I have NOT been guaranteed settlement or even a future visa. I may hope to stay in the UK, but the government has made no promises to that effect.

I understand everyone's fear, I have it too. But stamping our feet about entitlements we don't have is useless at best and completely counterproductive at worst.

[olisun]

The issue of transitional arrangements is also a lie because if you switch to a WP the time that you have already spent in the country on the HSMP scheme doesn't count any longer. So you will still have to apply for FLR at some point and may have to spend up to 9 years in the country before you can get ILR.

I am against this policy (rule) where one looses the time spent on HSMP when the person switches to WP from HSMP considering the person has been in continous employment while being on HSMP.

If the person has not been in the employment which reflects his skillset then the above is valid.

These are my thoughts only.

[Rog]

Well, with my three years extension, HO sent a signed letter stating that I would be eligible for ILR after 1+3, so the expectation was not created by me. You can't be expected to dream that a signed document from a UK govt authority on HO letterhead would be retracted and made null and void.

However, it is natural that those in well paid jobs and meeting the renewed criteria for extension would feel that the changes are justified and would support the HO.

Anyway, so far the courts have ruled in favour of both HSMP applicants not meeting the new criteria for legitimate expectations. So the legal challenge is the route to a fair decision.

[gordon]

I think the problem is that expectations appear to differ before and after the April/Nov 06 changes: those who entered prior to the changes were given to understand that the standard that they would need to meet on the path to settlement within four years was that they be economically active, while those afterward would have an expectation that they would meet the standard for settlement after requalifying under HSMP (after year two) and after being in the UK for five years.

What is perhaps problematic is the usage of the term 'retrospective'. While the 'changeing goalposts' may be prospective in the sense that only current applications for further leave are covered by it, it may be somewhat facile to argue that the changes are not retrospective, at least from the perspective that people who entered on one expected course toward settlement are now being held to a different (higher) set of parameters to achieve that end.

I appreciate the Government's position (certainly with regard to policy effectiveness and dynamic demands in the economy), but I would probably argue that not grandfathering in prior entrants then introduces further uncertainty into the process and increases the risk burden on migrants. Migrants already face enough uncertainty in the logistics of migrating to the UK; the Government's having allowed (dare I say, invited) people to make life-changing decisions with imperfect information about the risks they would bear going forward, would perhaps not be characterised as entirely above-board.

AG

[EdgeHillMole]

I am very disappointed that the e-petition response did not address the following concerns:

1. Differences in living expenses, and therefore salary expectations, between various regions within the UK;

2. The inequity of a WP ILR of 5 years vs HSMP -> WP ILR of 9-10 years, given similar skilled professionals working at similar skilled jobs;

3. Inequalities in UK salary between men and women (For doing similar work). Whilst these salary differences between the sexes still existed in the pre-November 2006 rules, IMHO the removal of experience and achievement as ways of obtaining points weighs even further against those of the "fairer sex".

[apeterso925]

Do you already have a job that pays enough to get your FLR? Don't be so smug if you don't.

Sorry guys - will stop whining now. I won't qualify for FLR, so I have to start packing and I am sad and upset.

I gather the smug comment was addressed to me? If not, then nevermind But if it was: No, I do not have a job yet, but I am not smug. I just don't feel I am entitled to anything in life (in general) that is not *actually* my right.

As I said earlier, I'm just as afraid as everyone else of what the changes mean for me. But fear does not entitle me to get what I want. I may very well be in your shoes in 2 years, unable to get an extension and on my way back to my country of origin. And I will be devastated if that's the case. But that was the chance I took when, with only a visa that allows me to stay in the UK for 2 years stamped into my passport, I left my life here in the US.

[Edelweiss]

Yes, but you know that coming in. We did not. We had a set of rules on which we based our decisions and those rules were changed. That is not the same thing.

[olisun]

Yes, but you know that coming in. We did not.

Did anybody know there would be attacks in London???

No, Similarly one should always be prepared for changes in life and always have a backup plan in case things didn't work in their favour.

I have noticed that most of the people only blame the UK govt. all the time and fail to see why they have been forced into such a situation.

[bani]

Yes, but you know that coming in. We did not. /quote]

Did anybody know there would be attacks in London???

No, Similarly one should always be prepared for changes in life and always have a backup plan in case things didn't work in their favour.

No, I didn't know there would be attacks in London. You're right, it's another misleading act, these should have been in the guidance notes!

[olisun]

Yes, but you know that coming in. We did not. /quote]

Did anybody know there would be attacks in London???

No, Similarly one should always be prepared for changes in life and always have a backup plan in case things didn't work in their favour.

No, I didn't know there would be attacks in London. You're right, it's another misleading act, these should have been in the guidance notes!

Your reply gives the impression that every HSMP applicant was / have been 100% truthful in thier respective applications and it's no fault of theirs that the UK Govt. has changed the goal post once again and you support those HSMP candidates who are to some extent responsible for the mess they created for others.

As somebody rightly quoted in another thread, "people who are dishonest or deceitful in their applications - the ends do not justify the means. The rest of us have our own challenges without having to contend with the implications of the misdeeds of the morally bankrupt."

[bani]

Your reply gives the impression that every HSMP applicant was / have been 100% truthful in thier respective applications and it's no fault of theirs that the UK Govt. has changed the goal post once again and you support those HSMP candidates who are to some extent responsible for the mess they created for others.

I'm not implying that at all. Maybe you gather that from the other thread you mentioned. But it's the government's responsibility to verify these applications anyway. If the policy change is because they have been duped by previous HSMP applicants, they should say so and give us the hard stats. Instead they have justified the rule changes as "being in line with the EU", "it's not really retrospective", etc.

[Edelweiss]

Your reply gives the impression that every HSMP applicant was / have been 100% truthful in thier respective applications and it's no fault of theirs that the UK Govt.

I suppose you also believe that people should not be allowed to try on clothes in shops because there are a few dishonest ones that steal. I really don't think laws should be based on what a few people do. A better way to deal with this would be to increase the time taken with applications and the cost (yes I know it's already expensive) and really check every applicant out. I don't understand why a police clearance certificate and health check are not included in the application process. If you ensure from the start that you are letting in only approved and valued people, you don't have to keep getting extensions.

Similarly, with the transitional arrangements to WP for those not qualifying for FLR - it is possible for the HO to check that a person was economically active during the period they were on HSMP and therefore their argument that the clock gets reset to 0 because people 'may not have been economically active' is spurious. There is another reason behind this - not sure what.

[gordon]

But it's the government's responsibility to verify these applications anyway. If the policy change is because they have been duped by previous HSMP applicants, they should say so and give us the hard stats. Instead they have justified the rule changes as "being in line with the EU", "it's not really retrospective", etc.

There's something here that seems almost to deflect responsibility from the applicant (to be honest) to the Government (to verify), which I find distressing. I would argue that if applicants are not wholly responsible for the veracity of their applications, then the Government need not give a robust justification for putting up the requirements.

AG

[bani]

But it's the government's responsibility to verify these applications anyway. If the policy change is because they have been duped by previous HSMP applicants, they should say so and give us the hard stats. Instead they have justified the rule changes as "being in line with the EU", "it's not really retrospective", etc.

There's something here that seems almost to deflect responsibility from the applicant (to be honest) to the Government (to verify), which I find distressing. I would argue that if applicants are not wholly responsible for the veracity of their applications, then the Government need not give a robust justification for putting up the requirements.

AG

I can't control what every schmuck with £335 submits to the Home Office, can you? But obviously the Home Office can screen them (I think they will be happy to say there has been no "deflection", this has been their caseworkers' job = their responsibility since 2002).

[olisun]

I really don't think laws should be based on what a few people do.

The problem with this approach is the few people who are effected then start crying they have been discriminated and the govt. is dearly beloved. Hence the easiest way for any govt. is to apply it across the board.

A better way to deal with this would be to increase the time taken with applications and the cost (yes I know it's already expensive) and really check every applicant out. I don't understand why a police clearance certificate and health check are not included in the application process. If you ensure from the start that you are letting in only approved and valued people, you don't have to keep getting extensions.

I agree with you completely but then again people start moaning that the process is very slow.

Similarly, with the transitional arrangements to WP for those not qualifying for FLR - it is possible for the HO to check that a person was economically active during the period they were on HSMP

I have posted almost similar views in another thread regarding this logic applied which I find is ridiculous.

[EdgeHillMole]

A better way to deal with this would be to increase the time taken with applications and the cost (yes I know it's already expensive) and really check every applicant out.

The Home Office had my application for almost 12 months. I would have thought that sufficient time to verify the information submitted with the application.

[UKbound]

As someone that still qualifies under the new criteria, I'm still unhappy.

I have expectations about being able to stay here, as does everyone that's immigrated to the UK on this programme. The paperwork itself says that you must be willing to make the UK your permanent home.

To change the rules in the middle of the game isn't fair, and the morality of it is also questionable.

I understand that some people may have abused the system, as happens in any system. Look at the public welfare system in the UK, for example. But the result is that a large group of people are being punished to solve for the minority that were dishonest. This scares me.

Even though I still qualify after all of the changes so far, who knows if that will be true after the 2008 modifications. It makes me uneasy to know that I've committed to the UK, with the impression and understanding that the UK was also committing to me, but now that appears not to be true.

[bani]

As someone that still qualifies under the new criteria, I'm still unhappy.

I have expectations about being able to stay here, as does everyone that's immigrated to the UK on this programme. The paperwork itself says that you must be willing to make the UK your permanent home.

To change the rules in the middle of the game isn't fair, and the morality of it is also questionable.

I understand that some people may have abused the system, as happens in any system. Look at the public welfare system in the UK, for example. But the result is that a large group of people are being punished to solve for the minority that were dishonest. This scares me.

Even though I still qualify after all of the changes so far, who knows if that will be true after the 2008 modifications. It makes me uneasy to know that I've committed to the UK, with the impression and understanding that the UK was also committing to me, but now that appears not to be true.

My feelings and situation are very similar to yours. As of now, I will qualify to extend my FLR, but who knows how rules will change again? Sure, I have a backup plan (because that is just my personality to always have one), what I really hate is being misled. I resent being made to sign a document that says I intend to make the UK my main home and then Liam Byrne creating new impediments and delays to that happening. And then callously saying the UK should be able to change its mind according to its best interest at present time and immigrants will just have to comply.

Fortunately for us, they have already lost twice in the courts. Our expectations (because of the way the guidance notes were worded prior to 2006) are being upheld.

Btw, if you read the gov't response, it says nothing of fraudulent applicants (other than border patrol having powers to kick them out... which no one is contesting), so I'm not sure why this thread has been hijacked by that topic.

[seek hsmp]

We will wait and see what happens, but my money is on the HSMP applicants to win this one.

I doubt the same. The rules/points for HSMP can be changed anytime or as many times as per Immigration policies.

I strongly believe that there should MORE POINTS for past UK work experience or study. 5 bonus points is too less. Should be at least 20.

People already in the UK working (economically active), though earning less pay, should be given a chance to carry on, possibly earn more in future and contribute further.

Age should be less important factor if HSMP tends to focus on Economic Contribution.

A person with past work experience in UK has a good chance of finding better jobs, contribute, etc.

Throwing someone out for new immigrants does not go down well and sends a wrong signal to employers.

HSMP has become more HIGHLY PAID rather than HIGHLY SKILLED.