Home Office Taking a Beating

Between the Windrush situation and the NHS doctor shortage now being blamed on immigration rules, the Home Office is really taking a beating in the news this week.

This was my favourite bit:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/embed/p065d54g/43902599

That's a great clip and I'm as angry as you about the whole thing.   

Today they admitted the targets.

Bout time someone lifted the rug over there to see the roaches scurrying about.

the NHS doctor shortage now being blamed on immigration rules, the Home Office is really taking a beating in the news this week.

Except that everyone on the UK's Shortage Occupation List always gets a visa in the monthly allocation as the UK wants these people.

The UK adds or remove jobs from the SoL as required.

Those doing a PhD level job will also always get a visa in the monthly allocation as the UK wants these too.

The UK has a points based system for the skilled workers who want to come to the UK to work and have a chance to settle in the UK with their family. The workers the UK want will always get a visa as they will have enough points to make sure they are at the top of the list for that months allocation. Visas for the low skilled workers have different requirements as these are only temporary visas of up to 2 years and only for the young (aged 18 -30).

It's interesting that the link talks about all the doctors from India being refused a visa (as they are not doing a job on the UK's Shortage Occupation List) because thousands of nurses from India are getting visas to the UK for themselves and their family because they are on the SoL, subject to the RLMT.

Each time one of the c2000 visas a month is given out to those on the SoL and those doing a PhD job, it means one less visa for all the rest who are not and who are hoping to get a visa.

I noticed on the forums that some of these doctors who have been refused a visa, said they managed to get a visa by applying as a doctor on the SoL instead. Emergency doctor seems to the favourite to secure a visa atm.

That's a great clip and I'm as angry as you about the whole thing.   

Today they admitted the targets.

There never could be targets for you as you used an EEA citizen to be in the UK as their non-EEA citizen family member.  Germany would not allow EEA countries affected by high numbers of immigrants using the EU routes, to have a cap. Although they do allow them to change the rules and sometimes outside of the what the EEA 2004 Directive says e.g. Switzerland: when the Swiss public voted to end the EU's "free movement" to their country because they could not cope with these high numbers of immigrants.

What a beautiful Monday morning!  Amber Rudd is out (Sajid David is in), and Theresa May is under pressure.  It doesn't affect me at all, as I'm only a few days away from the end of this immigration gauntlet run, but it would give me great satisfaction to see this all come crashing down around May.  Great satisfaction.

See the news in 'real time' here.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-43942610  The post at 9:52 is interesting:

Amelia Gentleman, the Guardian journalist who broke the Windrush story, says Amber Rudd's resignation is an "extraordinary moment" for the people caught up in the scandal.

She told Radio 4's Today programme: "I've been talking over last night and this morning to a number of them who've really had their lives ruined in totally catastrophic ways as a result of the Home Office treatment of them.

"They feel on the one hand extremely relieved that the government is finally taking this issue seriously.

"All of them expressed a bit of puzzlement that it was Amber Rudd taking the rap for this, because they point very clearly to Theresa May who they see as the architect of the policies that caused them all of these problems."

(emphasis is mine)

I understand why Rudd had to step down (that clip I shared above, followed by the revelation that she did know of the removals targets), but I share the Windrush-affected people's view that May was the architect of the policies that have hurt them, and I would share their frustration if May isn't held to account for creating the problems that they have faced.

Hear hear. Absolutely!

The thing is, immigrants, when they apply, are asked - required - to honestly answer any question. If they do not, they can be removed or sanctioned.

Is it too much to ask that those running the system be honest too? Because if there is some shadow system running back there behind the Whitehall fences - some sort of political star chamber - then immigrants should know about it - and be able to choose not to undertake what is a very difficult process already.

Is it too much to ask that those running the system be honest too?

It's sad that we even have to ask that of our leaders.  Shame politics are so corrupt. 

but I share the Windrush-affected people's view that May was the architect of the policies that have hurt them, and I would share their frustration if May isn't held to account for creating the problems that they have faced.

Abuse always causes changes and any new laws to catch all these abusers, will always makes it harder for the honest people.

Many Windrush families applied for British citizenship decades ago. For those families that didn't and who didn't keep the papers they needed, it hasn't helped that for some bizare reason that nobody will say why, the Windrush landling cards were all destroyed in 2009 after having been held for decades! And before anyone asks, it was the Labour government who destroyed their landing cards.

Government departments don't do anything without the government's say so. The Home Secretary in 2009 was Labour's Alan Johnson.
 

The timeline

2009 – Destruction of documents begins

In June 2009, the UK Border Agency approved the business case for disposing of millions of paper records.

The Home Office told us that it was then that the landing cards – or “registry slips” as they’re officially known – were earmarked for destruction. The work began in December of that year.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-who-destroyed-the-windrush-landing-cards



I don't think Brussels would be happy with May going while they are trying to negotiate a deal with the UK over Brexit. May was for remain, but it's likely the replacement would be a Brexit PM and the EU might not then get the money billions they need. The EUs Article 50 was a blunder because it makes it clear that nothing is owed when a country leaves the EU because EU laws end.

the Windrush landling cards were all destroyed in 2009

October 2010.

BBC News have an article out "10 charts explaining the UK's immigration system", and this section near the end was interesting:



The advice on UKY for as long as I can remember has been that appeals will take ages and you're unlikely to prevail.  But according to their figures, the numbers of appeals have decreased dramatically, and they say 53% were rejected (a disproportionate number of the rejections were for denied asylum seekers, who alone raise the rejection number to 60% when they make up a small percentage of appeals cases).  Given their lower caseload, and the possibility of success, maybe appealing a wrong decision is the right action, especially now that visa fees are much higher than they were back when caseloads were higher.  Thoughts?

The advice on UKY for as long as I can remember has been that appeals will take ages and you're unlikely to prevail.  But according to their figures, the numbers of appeals have decreased dramatically, and they say 53% were rejected (a disproportionate number of the rejections were for denied asylum seekers, who alone raise the rejection number to 60% when they make up a small percentage of appeals cases).  Given their lower caseload, and the possibility of success, maybe appealing a wrong decision is the right action, especially now that visa fees are much higher than they were back when caseloads were higher.  Thoughts?

All in-country appeals have ended under the Immigration Act 2014 (PBS visas) and the Immigration Act 2016 (all the rest) to stop all the abuse.

Appeals only work in the applicants favour if UKVI have made an incorrect decision on the evidence that was provided at the time of the application.

Appeals only work in the applicants favour if UKVI have made an incorrect deciison on the evidience that was provided at the time of the application.

I guess we haven't seen that actually happen, have we?

I guess we haven't seen that actually happen, have we?

The only one that we have is Katie_France at the moment (and technically she's a Russian applicant living in France, so not a US-specific incorrect decision).  She had a HIGHER level of English test required and was refused for not having the correct level.  It genuinely seems the Entry Clearance Officer wasn't aware that she had a higher level and not a lower level.  She reapplied with the exact same certificate and was granted her visa.  Her MP has been working with her to try to get a resolution/refund for the first application - which as far as we know - was incorrectly refused.

All the other refusals that we've had (that I've seen), have been correct.  Some harsh but all were technically correct to be refused.