HSMP petition against retrospective application of new law

[ismail]

Hello HSMP migrants,
A number of you must have already heard about the new immigration rules that will be applied to us. We will have to be on HSMP visa for five years (i. e. one additional year) before qualifiying for "indefinite leave to remain."

We believe that applying these rules in retrospect, which is the intention of the Home Office, is not fair. Therefore, a group of us (HSMP migrants and dependents):
1. wrote to our MPs objecting to this move and stressing our right to the original conditions on which we came to this country.

2. drafted a petition to Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, and posted it on the Internet at:

http://www.petitiononline.com/aioaim/petition.html

If you agree to the petiton content, please sign it and circulate it.
You can also forward it to non-HSMP migrants. Anyone who believes in the obligation of the Home Office to satisfy its original agreement with current HSMP migrants is invited to sign this petition.

Every Signature Counts!

Regards,

[aj77]

Really good news and great progress from another forum. One of member has met solicitor today and please find the following information.

Time: 12:00~13:00 Tue, 28 Mar. 06
Attendee: Louis, G******y
Topic: Legal Advising about extending ILR qualifying years from 4 to 5

Minutes:
1. Mr G******y H*****g is the senior immigration caseworker of Barnet Law Centre. Before working for law centre, he was a charted barrister. Barnet Law Centre is part of community legal service sponsored by Barnet council.
2. By English law, any new policy/law must be reviewed and consulted by public. As far as the adviser knew, many immigration organizations expressed serious concerns about the changes but Home Office still decided to push the 4->5 regardless any critics. “The home office consulted us because they had to do so by law, but they never listen actually”. There is no way to make them change minds in fact.
3. Home Office has to sustain themselves by income from passport application fees and visa application fees, so they intend to enlarge qualifying period to make more money from that. Many unexposed reasons/trade-offs make immigrants harder.
4. Immigration law is particularly unfair part in whole English law, because only affected persons are immigrants…
5. The deadline of suing is within 3 months after refused decision made from Home Office.
6. If any person wins in Court, this case can be directly applied to others with similar situation. (One wins, all wins)
7. Non-retrospective is a major principle in English law. If the barrister can prove the change is retrospective, he/she will definitely win in the court. But Home Office can argue that the application for ILR is a different application for work permit/HSMP, so the 4 to 5 years change to current WP/HSMP holders is not retrospective at all. Only judge can make the final decision.
8. Louis got an immigrant-specific solicitor’s phone number and would try to have a talk with them t

Non-retrospective is a major principle in English law

I wouldl be thankful if anybody could reply any of these questions in detail

1.Can anybody define word" retrospective" as most of us need clear understanding of this word?

2.What was the main idea of launching the programme of HSMP?Were they looking some workers for short term?

3.Who was responsible for making that policy?

4.Is ILR part of HSMP programme or ILR is different issue altogether?

5.if ILR was not the part of HSMP, on whom behalf HSMP Team invited to apply for ILR after 4 years to HSMP applicants and why it has been included in HSMP Guidance policy

6.Considering the email replies sent to HSMP applicants by HSMP Team not by any individual,does it have any legal value?
or they have full descretion to say anything or interpret their wordings by their own way or they are bound to reply responsibly?

7.these changes are retrospective or not?

I am asking all this related to HSMP because it looks like this can become stronger case and can make the ways for others too.Surely they did some other violationts too but we should be clear by ourselves first that these changes are retrospective or not?

If you have srious concerns about these changes you can get further information from:

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=7502

Do you think these changes are retrospective or not? Give the reasons supporting your arguement

[NationOne]

Folks, every signature counts! So please visit the link at the top of the page.

[saurya_s]

So is Clarke doing anything about it? Has this petition been send to him. I bet if we sue the HomeOffice we could win the case. Has someone got bright idea how to deal with this. It also mean someone who got HSMP last year for one year, his renewal shopuld be for 4 years (to make 5 years) for the current rule but that is not the case? There is the discripancy.
S

[aj77]

No you can t get extension for more than 3 years at one time according to rules.You need to apply for another 1 year after completion of 4 years to complete 5 years. i.e 1+3+1=5 for old HSMP visa holders.

[ismail]

We still have not sent the petition to Charles Clarke. We need more signatures, so please spread the word. I attended a gathering on Saturday (arranged by lawyers in the Chinese community) and they are pretty active with MPs. They requested that all those affected by the change in settlement rules from 4 to 5 years (HSMP or work permit visa holders), submit a formal complaint to their MP showing the "unintended hardship" resulting from this change of rules. Unintended Hardship is any consequence that we have to bear due to the new law, that the goverment has not anticipated. That includes paying non-resident university fees, difficulties with mortgage and travel to other countries, lack of access to some government jobs, etc... what ever you can think of.


I will write to my MP ASAP. As for the petition, 72 signatures seem too few considering the thousands of HSMP visa holders. Please circulate the link to anyone you believe would support us.

thanks

[ismail]

Hello everyone,
We all need active support to make a difference. We are only 10 signatures short of a hundred signatures. We plan to email the link to the petition to Charles Clarke, and shadow Home Secretaries after the Easter break.

Please get us more signatures, and remember it is also open for non-HSMP visa holders. Any one who believes in our right to our immigration terms as originally set by the government is welcome to sign.

[ismail]

I have some good news to share with you. You already know about the powerful efforts of the Chinese community on this issue, and about the positive response that the Turkish community has received from the Conservatives’ Shadow immigration minister, Mr Damian Green.

Now, the Arabic community, actually my husband, has received a promising response from Nick Clegg, the LibDems' Shadow Home Secretary.

It's certainly encouraging to know that someone is listening, that the efforts are starting to bear fruit, and that some action is being taken. But I believe it is more reason why we should intensify our efforts and "raise our voice" in the crucial coming few days - it seems like a real chance.


I quote from Clegg’s response:

“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”


In addition to Clegg, we sent objection emails including links to online petitions to the following Ministers and MPs


David Davis, Shadow home Secretary, Conservatives
Damian Green, Shadow Immigration Minister, Conservatives
Lynne Featherstone, Spokesperson for Home Affairs and London, Liberal Democrats
Mark Hunter, Spokesperson for Home Affairs, Liberal Democrats


I would like to invite all those who have been harmed by the application of the new rules to write to Shadow Ministers as well as to their MPs. A copy of an email to a Shadow Minister is included at the end of this email

It is time to unite all our efforts to inform anyone harmed by the application of the new rules; collect signatures for our petitions; write to Shadow Ministers; write to our MPs; and finally write to the Government (Charles Clarke in particular).

A very simple way of writing to your MP is to go a link set up by the Turkish community, enter your name, your address, press a button, and an email to your MP will be generated and sent automatically.

http://btcd.turkish-network.org/c.asp?sid=72515D4350


If each of us spares a few minutes now, we may save ourselves a whole extra year of temporary residency with all the trouble that comes with it. Actually, if we let this extension to 5 years go easily, what would stop the Government from deciding to extend the qualifying period to 7 or 9 or God know how many years?


Inas Ismail

---------------------------------------
Typical email to Shadow Minister
----------------------------------------




Dear …[ADD NAME],

I am a Highly Skilled Migrants Programme (HSMP) visa holder residing and working in the UK. In your capacity as the ...[ADD TITLE], I am writing to you to voice my concern over and objection to the retrospective application of newly introduced immigration rules on Work Permit (WP) and HSMP visa holders. I am also writing to request your assistance in voicing my concern and objection to the Government and in the House of Commons.

Please allow me first to explain the situation in some detail. We, the WP and HSMP visa holders, made our decision to come to live and work in the UK based on the immigration rules laid out by the government at the time of our application. The main terms included working in the UK, paying full residents’ taxes, paying full residents’ National Insurance, making no recourse to public funds, and a four-year time frame to qualify for indefinite leave to remain in the UK. We were accepted as legal immigrants; invited to integrate into the British economy and society; made life-changing arrangements; and came to legally live and work in the UK according to these immigration rules.

Since we arrived in the UK, we have been abiding by these rules, we have been working and contributing to the UK economy, we have been paying full residents’ taxes, we have been paying full residents’ National Insurance, and we have not made any recourse to public funds. In other terms, we have been paying full residents’ contribution to the economy, society, and country we live in, without being allowed recourse to full residents’ benefits and rights. We chose to accept this arrangement because it was bound to last for four years, after which we were supposed to qualify for indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

Now, the government has decided to change its immigration rules and extend the current four-year time frame to qualify for indefinite leave to remain in the UK, into five years. We are not contesting the government’s right to change its immigration rules. However, we are objecting to the retrospective application of these new rules on current WP and HSMP visa holders because it is not fair and because it will create unanticipated hardships for many law-abiding, hard-working, highly-skilled immigrants, who made life changing arrangements to live and work in the UK under the original immigration rules.

The stated rationale behind the change is to ensure better integration of economic migrants into UK society. I believe that this change of rules in fact limits our full contribution to society, creates feelings of alienation and non-belonging, and puts us at a significant professional and economic disadvantage.

First, it is almost impossible to get a reasonable mortgage deal if one does not have an indefinite leave to remain. Not owning a home is certainly not conducive to feelings of integration and settlement. It also prevents us from fully participating in and contributing to the UK economy.

Second, until holding an indefinite leave to remain, I and other members of my family do not qualify for UK residents tuition fees in any educational institution. This adds an unaffordable economic burden and significantly restricts our opportunities for learning and development.

Third, it becomes increasingly difficult to be granted entry visas to other countries if our leave to remain in the UK is valid for less than 6 months, which limits our freedom of movement, and put those of us whose jobs require overseas travel, like myself, at a great professional disadvantage. Applying the new immigration rules retrospectively will unduly stretch this disadvantage.

I very much value the democratic system that allows me to express my opinion, and work to change what I believe is wrong. We, the WP and HSMP visa holders, are therefore writing to our MPs, to the Government and to the Opposition to express our objection and to seek help. We have also written two online petitions objecting to the retrospective application of the new rules and have gained the support of several hundred signatories. You can access the petitions using the following hyperlinks: http://www.petitiononline.com/ILR45/petition.html and
http://www.petitiononline.com/aioaim/petition.html

I hope I managed to make clear our case against the retrospective application of the newly introduced immigration rules on current WP and HSMP visa holders. I would very much appreciate your assistance in voicing our grievance and objection to the Government and in the House of Commons. I would also appreciate your advice regarding the best course of action we should follow to try and reverse the retrospective application of these rules.

Thank you for your help,

Sincerely,

---------------------------------
End of email
---------------------------------