BCI: UK-Y Commons

Hello peeps!

The Borders Citizenship and Immigration Bill has just had its 2nd reading at the House of Commons.

As the Bill left the House of Lords, the Lords introduced Clause 39 which provided a 12 month grace period for migrants already in the immigration system.

The Government have tabled an amendment (#30) that will remove Clause 39 and the grace period that it provides. This is totally unacceptable. Why? Because it would mean that those about to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain would have to go through the new 'earned citizenship' measures.

Additionally - and more worringly - the Government has now said thatit plans to introduce a new points-based system for citizenship. So, even if you 'earn' your citizenship, you will still have to accumulate enough points to become a british citizen.

So - what can YOU do?

We have to urge MPs not to support amendment 30 (which seeks to remove Clause 39 from the Bill).

At this point writing to your local MP will not be that helpful IMHO. 

I have drawn up a list of the people who I feel would be worth writing to. The first list of names are those who form the Borders citizenship and immigration Bill committe. The secon are a combination of people who spoke sympathically at 2nd reading and members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

What do I need to say in the letter?

Basically, please oppose amendment 30 as tabled by Phil Woolas. It is vital that Clause 39 remains part of the Bill etc.

Additionally, please print and enclose the "KEEP CLAUSE 39 BRIEFING" which can be found at:

http://www.londonelegance.com/transpondia/response/Clause39Briefing.pdf

But please write TODAY as Committee is this Tuesday!  Thank You.

Names and e-mails of Borders citizenship and Immigration Bill Committee (total 18 ):
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Con) (Chairmen): wintertonn@parliament.uk
Miss Anne Begg (Lab) (Chairmen): begga@parliament.uk
Mr David Anderson (Lab): andersonda@parliament.uk
Mr Crispin Blunt (Con): crispinbluntmp@parliament.uk
Tom Brake (LibDem): braket@parliament.uk
Mr Simon Burns (Con): burnss@parliament.uk
Damian Green (Con, Shadow Minister for Immigration): greend@parliament.uk
Andrew Gwynne (Lab): gwynnea@parliament.uk
Mr David Hamilton (Lab): hamiltonda@parliament.uk
Mr Adam Holloway (Con): hollowaya@parliament.uk
Steve McCabe (Lab): mccabes@parliament.uk
Kerry McCarthy (Lab): mccarthyk@parliament.uk
Siobhain McDonagh (Lab): mcdonaghs@parliament.uk
Gwyn Prosser (Lab): prosserg@parliament.uk
Paul Rowen (LibDem): rowenp@parliament.uk
Mr Charles Walker (Con): walkerc@parliament.uk
Phil Wilson (Lab): wilsonphil@parliament.uk

Addtionally, here are sympathatic speakers at 2nd readin and members of JCHR:

Mr Chris Grayling
Mr Neil Gerrard
Mr Chris Grayling
Mr Neil Gerrard
Mr Chris Huhne
Mr Keith Vaz
Mr Nigel Evans
Albert Owen
Pete Wishart
Dr Alasdair McDonnell
Mr Charles Walker
Julie Morgan
Mr Alistair Burt
Ms Alison Seabeck
Mr Damian Green
Lembit Öpik
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)
Robert Key (Salisbury)
Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Chair)
Mr John Austin MP
Dr Evan Harris MP
Mr Virendra Sharma MP
Mr Richard Shepherd MP
Mr Edward Timpson MP

This is great Jalexa thank you!!

Why is it that most of the people selected to be in the committee Labour?? I just wonder how many of those will still be MP's after the elections?

Isn't it wrong to introduce the point based system to the Bill now when it wasn't in there before as part of the original bill? Can they do this? This point was brought up on Tuesdays debate and the fact that most of the Bill has been very vague lacking any significant details. I don't know how the MP's are supposed to properly debate this debacle of a bill. And what is up with Phil Woolas and the government being so horrible and against those already in the system??? It becomes more and more apparent that Mr. Woolas does not care about the livelihood of immigrants who are law abiding tax paying people who already contribute greatly to this country. During the debates it seemed a lot of MP's were against this bill and found that only the welfare of children to be the best part of it all, the rest being absurdely ridiculous and illogical.

Sigh.

http://www.londonelegance.com/transpondia/response/Clause39Briefing.pdf

But please write TODAY as Committee is this Tuesday!  Thank You.

Thanks for posting this, Jon.

For those who opt to write in, please consider cc'ing me.

All done!  Sent a massive e-mail, which I realise is not quite as effective (though it's BCC so some may not realise) - most of them however do have auto-replies saying they will not deal with communication from non-constituents, so don't expect heavy results, peeps.  This is why I almost prefer Lords!!

Here is my letter which can be used as a template:

Dear Mr. Green,

First, having followed this Bill closely since it was first introduced in the Lords, I would like to thank you for the valuable contribution you made at 2nd Reading.

I write specifically regarding the Government’s relentless intention to apply the changes of Part 2 retrospectively to migrants already part-way through the current path to citizenship. Despite Mr. Woolas’ closing remarks, nothing has changed: The Government still fully intends to apply the changes retrospectively. That is why Mr. Phil Woolas has tabled amendment 30 which seeks to remove Clause 39 from the Bill.

Retrospection

First – and for clarity - the ONLY migrants that will suffer from retrospective changes are those holding qualifying Limited Leave to Remain.

Those holding Indefinite Leave to Remain have never had anything to worry about this Bill. This is because the Bill itself provides that those with Indefinite Leave to Remain will be automatically treated as having the new “permanent residence leave”  (Clause 50(3) page 42, line 34).  This position has also been confirmed by Lord Brett on the floor of the House of Lords as well as in written correspondence to Lord Avebury.

However, without Clause 39, Part 2 WILL be applied retrospectively to holders of Limited Leave to Remain. This ignores good practice, two High court judgements (HSMP), and a letter issued by the Home Office to migrants issued with Limited Leave to Remain which categorically states that they are permitted to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain at the end of their current leave.

Baroness Hanham, and Lord Avebury made very clear at the other place that those with Limited Leave to Remain should not be caught up by the changes – hence an amendment was accepted which is now Clause 39 in the Bill.

Phil Woolas: A Meaningless Assurance and ‘Twisting’ the HSMP High Court Ruling?

Do not be fooled by Mr. Woolas’ closing remarks:

“I have reassured the House that these proposals do not in any way retrospectively affect those with ILR. The hon. Member for Ashford fairly raised a point relating to the highly skilled migrants scheme; I concede that point, the court has ruled, and we will of course obey.”

This is a meaningless assurance for three reasons: 

1.   The two Home Office High Court defeats did NOT concern retrospective changes to migrants holding Indefinite Leave to Remain as Mr. Woolas would have you believe.  Rather, the HSMP High Court rulings concerned migrants with Limited Leave to Remain. 
2.   The Home Office has to obey anyway – the Court Order cannot be ignored.
3.   Clause 39 seeks to those protect migrants with limited leave to remain who are on a path which leads to citizenship. These include family members (spouse/civil partner), economic migrants (HSMP, Work Permit holder etc) and UK Ancestry paths. For clarity the clause is not limited to only HSMP.

Astonishingly, it seems that the Home Office is up to its old tricks again. It has made clear it intends to make changes and apply them to people already part-way through the system.

One point that may have been overlooked is the High Court found on both Home Office defeats that retrospective changes to the immigration rules are UNLAWFUL.

It is of paramount importance that Clause 39 remains as part of the Bill.  This is even more important as Jacqui Smith dropped the new bombshell of the upcoming points-based system for Citizenship.  Without Clause 39, Part 2 will be applied retrospectively. This would be unfair, unjust and above all unlawful.

I cannot urge you strongly enough not to agree to Phil Woolas’ amendment 30 which seeks to remove Clause 39 from the Bill.

Bottom Line: Clause 39 MUST remain part of the Bill - Oppose Amendment 30.

With the Committee stages approaching quickly, I hope that this letter will prove beneficial and my concerns taken onboard.

Yours Sincerely,

I know this may sound like a confused (and confusing) question...but, if Clause 39 stays in there, will this stop the likelihood of the bill being bounced back to Lords and make it go through as it is faster?

My MP is on that committee, but I don't want to confuse him with this issue while he's working on another issue regarding citizenship for me...any help appreciated!

I think that it is still a good idea to write to your own MP if you haven't already.

And Julie, really, don't worry about confusing your MP.  If you don't want to write, ask someone else in your houshold to write.  It is crucial that committee members know the issues here.

Vicky

True, Vicky - I keep forgetting I have this husband...and he'd be more than happy to write.

Also, if my MP calls me before Tuesday, my issue will be done and dusted one way or the other...that may then be a good opportunity to mention my concerns about Clause 39 with him.  No matter what he has to tell me on my personal matter, this will probably not affect me, but it still deeply concerns me.

I've written Mark Field.  I used Jalexa's post with minor changes and added the link to the pdf.  

I am not that great with writing these things because I will admit I don't fully understand how things work with legislation here.  I try to write these in my own words, but I get all bungled up in what to call things and how to explain them.  Form letters are very helpful sometimes.

ETA: This isn't to say I don't understand the underlying issues with retrospection, just that I am not confident enough in my knowledge to write an appropriate letter to an MP about it without help.

Just got back from the Post Office! Never bought so many Large first class stamps!

Let's see what happens next week!

The way things are going there will be a new government before long!

Vicky

I still have 18 months before I can apply for my ILR.  I would like to think the UK Government can't force me to get divorced because I don't have enough points or whatever they come up. But just in case is there anyway I can apply for German Citizenship with Maternal German Grandparents, Great Grandparents ect.

You'll need to check with the German Embassy.  I seem to rememebr that they have a residency requirement but you will have to check as I am certainly not an expert in German nationality law.

Vicky

haha to see the expression of the German officials after I tell them yes I'm married to a Brit but I need German Citizenship to stay in the UK because I don't have enough points 

I still have 18 months before I can apply for my ILR.  I would like to think the UK Government can't force me to get divorced because I don't have enough points or whatever they come up. But just in case is there anyway I can apply for German Citizenship with Maternal German Grandparents, Great Grandparents ect.

http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/04__Legal/02__Directory__Services/02__Citizenship/__Citizenship.html