BCI: UK-Yankee Campaign

The Borders Citizenship and Immigration will change the way migrants become settled in the UK. The new 'Earned Citizenship' arrangements will make it harder and longer for a migrant to settle in the UK including rewards for doing unpaid voluntary service. There is even talks about plans to introduce a Points-based system for family migrants with level of points required can be changed at a moments notice.

What's worse it the Govt. are determined to apply the changes RETROSPECTIVELY - to EXISTING migrants. What does this mean for you? Well, if you hold Limited Leave to Remain on the date the changes take place, you will be forced to go through the new immigration system.

The Govt. have provided transitional arrangements for those holding Indefinite leave to remain in the UK.  However, there is ZERO protection for migrants with LIMITED LEAVE TO REMAIN. This is the point we need to get across.

We are urging people to contact their MP AND the following key people to express their concerns about RETROSPECTIVE legislation:

graylingc@parliament.uk
greend@parliament.uk
huhnec@parliament.uk
donaldsonjm@parliament.uk
hermons@parliament.uk
wishartp@parliament.uk
llwyde@parliament.uk
durkanm@parliament.uk
gallowayg@parliament.uk
shortc@parliament.uk
gerrardn@parliament.uk
vazk@parliament.uk
rob@robertkey.com
evansn@parliament.uk
braket@parliament.uk
hamiltonda@parliament.uk
prosserg@parliament.uk
rowenp@parliament.uk
andrewdismoremp@parliament.uk
austinj@parliament.uk
harrise@parliament.uk
sharmav@parliament.uk
shepherdr@parliament.uk
timpsone@parliament.uk
crispinbluntmp@parliament.uk
burnss@parliament.uk
gwynnea@parliament.uk
hollowaya@parliament.uk
prosserg@parliament.uk
walkerc@parliament.uk


Here is a *template* letter you can use. Please do not copy word-for-word!!

Clause 39 was introduced in the Lords to provide a twelve-month grace period to ensure that migrants already part-way through the current path to citizenship would not be caught up by a retrospective application of Part 2.

However, Clause 39 was regrettably removed during the Commons public bill committee. This was largely due to the minister Phil Woolas’ providing an assurance that:

 “I hope that the Committee will accept our good intent on the HSMP route, and  my argument that there is not in all cases in the other routes a legitimate expectation of ILR being granted but rather the right to apply. My proposals on the timings for transitional arrangements for the three routes through temporary leave—particularly the hon. Member for Rochdale’s point on the spousal route—    will be subject to the detailed proposals that we will bring back to the House and the other place in order to meet the principle, although not excepting automaticity, that has been expressed on both sides of the House…

 The transitional arrangements that we will put in place need to take on board the tests of reasonableness and fairness without moving the goalposts for the legitimate expectation of the person with temporary leave. The intention of the person who has applied for temporary leave is, of course, a different point that cannot be covered by statute.  On that basis, and with the guarantee that I have made to the House, I ask the Committee to consider turning down clause 39 if there is a vote so that we can have a detailed look at the transitional arrangements.”

 

The Govt. have come back with Amendment 17 tabled by Secretary Alan Johnson. Sadly, Amendment 17 falls far short of being fair and reasonable.  Whilst the amendment provides transitional arrangements for those holding indefinite leave to remain or have submitted an application for ILR prior to the date of commencement of part 2, it does not provide protection for existing migrants with Limited Leave to Remain.

The Governments two embarrassing defeats at High Court were on this very point: The HSMP high court rulings concerned retrospective changes to the immigration rules for migrants with LIMITED leave to Remain – not indefinite leave to remain.

Retrospective changes to the immigration rules unfair and above all unlawful.

Amendment 17 as tabled is NOT satisfactory.  It does not offer any protection whatsoever to existing migrants in the UK with limited leave to remain.  As a consequence, such migrants would be fully exposed to the new earned citizenship regime.

In the interests of fairness, justice and lawfulness, please introduce an amendment that ensures that existing migrants with LIMITED LEAVE TO REMAIN also do not get caught up by the changes to the immigration system.

Yours Sincerely

Thanks Jon.  I wrote to Ann Widdecombe again. 

I have wriiten a letter to Mr. Phil Woolas.  I wonder if it might help to cc other mp's?  Do you know the address for Phil Woolas?

Dear Mr. Phil Woolas,

I have been watching with great interest the progress the BCI bill is making.  I have to tell you that I have never been more insulted that I am now with your comment that current immigrants have no legitimate expectation of ILR being granted. 

I am a 52-year-old American citizen who married a British citizen and is now in possession of an FLR.  Before embarking on this life, we both did a lot of research on what a move like this entailed.  We took into account not just finances but also length of time involved for the whole route to be complete. 

The UKBA website spelled out the requirements and steps we would have to go through.  After deciding it was something we could do, we decided to go through with our plans of at long last marrying. 

I have sold my business in the States, left my family behind, moved to a new country, married a man who, even though I love dearly, is disabled, housebound and in need of daily care.  For you to insinuate that I did all of this without an EXPECTATION of being able to remain with my husband is indeed quite insulting. 

I am sure I speak for many other immigrants who would voice to you that they too, have not made such a huge step without an EXPECTATION of being able to finish the route they started, a route that was spelled out to them by the UKBA, BEFORE they started their journey.

For you to change our paths now midstream is unfair, unjust and very much unsettling, not just to us, the immigrants, but also to the British spouses and families involved.

I urge you to reconsidered retrospective changes for those of us currently in the immigration path with FLRs.

Thank you,

Lisa - nice letter! It might also be worth mentioning that the expectation of settlement as the spouse of a British Citizen is very different to those who come here on a Work Permit scheme.

I think the correct email for Phil Woolas is: woolasp@parliament.uk

Has this or is this going to committee? If it has where there any experts to educate MP's of the adverse effects on immigrants already in the system.

Has this or is this going to committee? If it has where there any experts to educate MP's of the adverse effects on immigrants already in the system.

It has already gone to committee and that is where Clause 39 (the only protection for those with LLR) was removed.

I'm wondering about something. After this bill becomes an act (after royal assent) is the intention for it to be presented to Parliament in October or is it already law? Is that why the big push to get it done now?

I noticed that the report and the 3rd reading are on the same day. Technically the 3rd reading should be further debating on the bill but it won't matter as most of the debating seems to fall on deaf ears. After that, however, is the ping-pong stage. I've noticed that this can really only happen Wednesday, Thursday, or Monday because Friday the House of Lords do not work (??) and the following Tuesday the 21st is the final day before the House disperses for the summer. Talk about cutting it close. Hopefully the Lords stand firm and do not get pushed to follow the Commons ideas on the bill and actually fight to keep what was clause 23A then clause 39 to be put back in. I know Baroness Hanham was very emotional about clause 23A. Fingers crossed it ping-pongs enough to pass the 21st and lie dormant until October. Wishful thinking I suppose lol but one can always hope.

Royal Assent turns it from a Bill to an Act, and means it is entered into law.  Then, in October, the matters within which only need an order in council will be decided, along with an implementation timetable (though I expect this is already written).

Vicky

I amended my letter to include "Anyone on a settlement visa as opposed to those on a Work Permit Scheme has come here with a very real expectation of indefinite settlement."
I then sent it to Phil Woolas and I cc'd each of the names on Jalexa's list

EDIT:I wonder which of the following addresses I write to him at?

 Thank you for sending an email to Phil Woolas, Member of Parliament for Oldham East and Saddleworth.

Due to the volume of email we are receiving, we can no longer accept casework electronicially.  Please write to Phil at:

Lord Chambers
11 Church Lane
Oldham
OL1 3AN

If your query is urgent, please telephone our constituency office on 0161 624 4248. 

If your correspondence relates to the Home Office, please forward your correspondence to:

Home Office
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF


With all best wishes and many thanks for your understanding in this matter.

Office of Phil Woolas MP
Oldham East and Saddleworth

I've written to my MP Theresa Villiers today, my wife has ILR so I we're in a slightly less precarious position but I quoted Phil Woolas' phrase in committee about transitional arrangements and how he stated the House would have a chance to debate these. I made the point about how it isn't clear who they would apply to, what those arrangements will be.

The third reading is next week but it was indicated it would have to come back from the Lords once more because of changes the government wish to make to the bill if I'm reading the transcript of the committee meetings correctly.

David.

EDIT: ars*, I sent the letter this morning without reading about the amendment proposed by Alan Johnson, It's superceded some parts of my letter but I'll try to contact her again to discuss it further.

I received a reply today from Phil Wool as via Ann Wheatgerm, who I had sent a query about retrospective changes.  This is an excerpt from his reply

" I note that your constituent's concern regarding worries over retrospective action to those migrants already in the UK.  I have been very clear that our transitional arrangements should be fair to those with reasonable expectations.  Commencement of the legislation is due therefore to take place in July 2011 giving a considerable period of notice to all migrants currently in or planning to come to the UK.  On 7 July the Government laid before Parliament our proposed transitional arrangements.  Those individuals with Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) before commencement, or whose successful application for ILR was submitted before commencement, will automatically be given Permanent Residence status at no cost to themselves.  They will also be able to apply for citizenship under the current system provided they apply within two years of commencement.  Those immigrants who entered on the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme will also be able to apply under the system as it was when they applied to the Programme"

Emphasis added by me.

I suppose a signed letter by Mr. Phil Woolas would certainly give me that "reasonable expectation" wouldn't it? 

I'd keep that letter in a very safe place as proof, just in case! 

I actually have two of them.  One addressed to me and one addressed to my husband in response to a letter he also wrote.  They are standard replies to anyone asking about retrospective changes I suppose. 

 Those individuals with Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) before commencement, or whose successful application for ILR was submitted before commencement, will automatically be given Permanent Residence status at no cost to themselves.  They will also be able to apply for citizenship under the current system provided they apply within two years of commencement.  Those immigrants who entered on the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme will also be able to apply under the system as it was when they applied to the Programme"[/i]

Er... sorry for sounding thick but can I just clarify the HSMP bit of the response pls..? Those who entered on HSMP will be able to apply for what exactly... ILR? Is this even if I don't finish serving five years under HSMP/ Tier 1 before BCI comes in to effect? Sounds too good to be true or I must be desperate to interpret it the way I want to 

Well, I don't think it will be ILR as that will be done away with.  Even those on ILR will no longer have it, but will instead be switched to Permanent Residence Status.