Before you permanently move to the US

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18888241

The Home Office has suffered a potentially serious legal setback in its efforts to reduce the numbers of migrant workers in the UK.

The Supreme Court said ministers could not bar workers unless rules used to do so had been shown to Parliament.

The Home Office said it would act quickly to ensure the judgement requirements were met.

Home Affairs Committee chairman Keith Vaz said the ruling had delivered a "hammer blow" to the current system.

The judgement could have implications for many rejected cases since 2008 - or possibly earlier.

'Unlawful' decision

Supreme Court deputy president Lord Hope said Parliament must see rules before they could be used.

And fellow judge Lord Dyson warned Parliament's system for overseeing immigration rules may no longer be fit for purpose, given the workload it could now face.

The ruling came in the case of Hussain Zulfiquar Alvi, a Pakistani man who came to the UK in 2003 as a student. He stayed on after his studies to become a physiotherapy assistant.

In 2009, he applied for further leave to remain under revised rules for migrant workers called the Points-Based System. The system, which came into force in 2008, uses points to calculate which migrants have the most skills and would be of most benefit to the UK.

The Home Office said Mr Alvi could not stay because he did not have enough skills to earn sufficient points.

But Mr Alvi said the decision was unlawful because Parliament had not actually been shown the specific Home Office-set rules relating to his occupation.

Under a 40-year-old law, Parliament's Scrutiny Committee must examine all changes to immigration rules.

In its judgement, the Supreme Court said the occupation list which applied to the decision in Mr Alvi's case was clearly part of the immigration rules that needed to be examined by Parliament, because MPs and peers wanted a say in how immigration was being controlled.

Lord Hope, the lead justice in the case, said he recognised the judgement could create a huge workload for Parliamentarians.

He said: "The situation that has created this problem is so far removed from what it was in 1971 that one wonders whether the system that was designed over 40 years ago is still fit for its purpose today."

The full implications of the ruling are not yet clear, but legal sources have told the BBC that it could be one of the most important judgements on immigration in a decade.

'Significant development'

Lord Dyson, agreeing with Lord Hope's leading judgement, criticised the modern immigration system.

"It is... a striking fact that the immigration rules are already hugely cumbersome," he said.

"The complexity of the machinery for immigration control has (rightly) been the subject of frequent criticism and is in urgent need of attention.

Immigration controls have been described as "cumbersome" A Home Office spokesperson said: "We will act quickly to ensure the requirements of this judgment are met and that the necessary guidance is transferred into the Immigration Rules.

"Today's judgment supports our ongoing work to simplify the immigration system and minimise legal challenge in future."

The rules in the Alvi case are expected to be laid before Parliament before the end of the week, complying with the judgement.

Shahram Taghavi, deputy head of immigration at Lewis Silkin LLP law firm, said: "Today's ruling will have a profound impact upon the current corporate immigration system, and effectively represents a wholesale collapse of the legal framework for immigration policy in the UK.

"This decision will no doubt reverberate loudly and widely, given the sheer number of cases on related matters winding their way through the Courts at present. Had the Home Office and Secretary of State elected to pursue changes to immigration in the proper way - through Parliamentary review and scrutiny - it is clear that this chaotic situation could have been avoided."

Mr Vaz said: "This judgement delivers a hammer blow to the Points-Based System. The court is very clear that ministers must place rules before Parliament for proper scrutiny.

"Their failure to do so over a number of years leaves the immigration system open to ridicule. Thousands of people will not know whether or not they are allowed to stay in the country."

He added: "I have written to the Home Secretary to ask what steps she intends to take to deal with this judgement.

The Migration Observatory think-tank at Oxford University said it was a "potentially very significant development" that could call into question the validity of immigration rules as a whole.

"This could open the government up to an enormous number of legal challenges, not only from labour migrants, but also from family migrants and others," a spokesperson said.

[rocks 494]

Thanks. Another very interesting article.

He added: "I have written to the Home Secretary to ask what steps she intends to take to deal with this judgement.

The Migration Observatory think-tank at Oxford University said it was a "potentially very significant development" that could call into question the validity of immigration rules as a whole.

"This could open the government up to an enormous number of legal challenges, not only from labour migrants, but also from family migrants and others," a spokesperson said.

Does anyone want to guess what her response might be?

[Boiler 45,322]

This so reminds me of all the Euro #######. I must admit I thought that would have gone bang by now.

There seems no limit to what Politicians/Judges will do to keep the pressure building and the lid clamped down so when the day of reckoning comes as it must then the bang will be that much bigger and painful.

Not that they will take any responsibility.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

This so reminds me of all the Euro #######. I must admit I thought that would have gone bang by now.

There seems no limit to what Politicians/Judges will do to keep the pressure building and the lid clamped down so when the day of reckoning comes as it must then the bang will be that much bigger and painful.

Not that they will take any responsibility.

You know, I'm really surprised you would say these things.

Last summer, when these family rules started brewing, it was rumored they would be put through as secondary legislation. Why not? The Home Office had been pumping all the other changes through that way. And look what that got them - this verdict today. They started whittling away at immigration with the Tiered categories through secondary legislation and policy; their method was challenged and found to be without merit.

IMO, what they did was even more egregious when they approached the family rules in the same cavalier manner. They decided to mess around with Article 8. As a British citizen, you shouldn't be happy that the government decided to operate in that manner. You shouldn't be happy they would try to push through legislation that affects human rights without some sort of real due process in Parliament. If they can get away with that kind of governance over the rights of British spouses of non-EU citizens, what's to stop from them from trying it with other legislation? You might consider it over the top for me to suggest that such legislative shenanigans looks like the first drip of the erosion of everyone's rights. But I've been following these changes for at least a year, and pretty much every legal expert I read has called this underhanded and therefore unlikely to hold up in courts of law. And low and behold - it has not.

You should be well pleased that the UK Supreme Court has sent a message loud and clear to one branch of your government. You may feel something needs to be done about immigration to your country. But you should be careful what you wish for. It's not all right for a government to chip away at the rights of any segment of their population through legislative hood-winking, no matter what the political climate or how "undesirable" the target is. The winds of politics turn far to swiftly for that. When you are the electorate, you never know when you and your kind might become the next "undesirables".

[Boiler 45,322]

Rights come with responsibilities, they seem to have been separated.

Obviously it would have been better if the situation had never been allowed to arise, like the Euro it was totally foreseeable.

Now the situation is here it is going to be messy, very messy, and innocent people will be hit with the #######.

I would prefer that it was done the right way and without undue delay. I can not quite believe I typed that, what am I thinking of!

Edited July 18, 2012 by Boiler

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Rights come with responsibilities, they seem to have been separated.

Obviously it would have been better if the situation had never been allowed to arise, like the Euro it was totally foreseeable.

Now the situation is here it is going to be messy, very messy, and innocent people will be hit with the #######.

I would prefer that it was done the right way and without undue delay. I can not quite believe I typed that, what am I thinking of!

In this case, what responsibility would you have separated from the right of family? The responsibility to be self-supporting? To not take from the public coffer?

What is stopping the Coalition from just saying that migrants can't access public funds for five years (or whatever time they DEMOCRATICALLY decide) and just leave it at that? Then mark everyone's passport as such? And develop clear national guidance for every Social Security and Housing Executive in the land so that staff understand when someone is subject to immigration control? What is stopping the Coalition from just STOPPING access to benefits, rather than stopping families from being together?

I have said from Day One of this fiasco that I could not care less if they stopped me, as an immigrant to the UK, from drawing benefits. I have the suspicion that most other legitimate domestic partners would feel the same.

[Captain Oates 911]

In this case, what responsibility would you have separated from the right of family? The responsibility to be self-supporting? To not take from the public coffer?

What is stopping the Coalition from just saying that migrants can't access public funds for five years (or whatever time they DEMOCRATICALLY decide) and just leave it at that? Then mark everyone's passport as such? And develop clear national guidance for every Social Security and Housing Executive in the land so that staff understand when someone is subject to immigration control? What is stopping the Coalition from just STOPPING access to benefits, rather than stopping families from being together?

I have said from Day One of this fiasco that I could not care less if they stopped me, as an immigrant to the UK, from drawing benefits. I have the suspicion that most other legitimate domestic partners would feel the same.

Absolutely correct and therefore the reasoning they have put forward is spurious.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Today's decision by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has shaken up the Home Office.

Theresa May will attempt to lay her rules before the House of Lords tomorrow to try and validate them.

Depending on what happens Friday when the Lords take up the matter, there is the

POSSIBILITY that the new rules may be invalidated for a window of time.

Persons who were caught unawares of the changes MAY have the opportunity to apply under the old rules, and should prepare for that possibility.

I like this article from the Aldrich blog which goes into more detail:

http://alrich.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/alvi-immigration-case-supreme-court-rejects-home-office-codes-of-practice/

[Boiler 45,322]

In this case, what responsibility would you have separated from the right of family? The responsibility to be self-supporting? To not take from the public coffer?

What is stopping the Coalition from just saying that migrants can't access public funds for five years (or whatever time they DEMOCRATICALLY decide) and just leave it at that? Then mark everyone's passport as such? And develop clear national guidance for every Social Security and Housing Executive in the land so that staff understand when someone is subject to immigration control? What is stopping the Coalition from just STOPPING access to benefits, rather than stopping families from being together?

I have said from Day One of this fiasco that I could not care less if they stopped me, as an immigrant to the UK, from drawing benefits. I have the suspicion that most other legitimate domestic partners would feel the same.

The UK and for that matter the US are not Democracies, it would be interesting to see what the general populace would decide.

But putting that to one side they did Democratically decide, and the courts overturned them. So that is a bit of a dead end.

Like I said there is no good solution, so which would be the less bad.

I would start by deciding how many the Country can absorb, then allocate that number between the various categories, work family etc. I would favour souses and children rather than siblings and parents, perhaps a percentage limit by country and a ban on benefits as has been mentioned until Citizenship has been obtained. Perhaps a compulsory premium towards NHS services dependent on age and medical history?

Just a thought.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

The UK and for that matter the US are not Democracies, it would be interesting to see what the general populace would decide.

But putting that to one side they did Democratically decide, and the courts overturned them. So that is a bit of a dead end.

Like I said there is no good solution, so which would be the less bad.

I would start by deciding how many the Country can absorb, then allocate that number between the various categories, work family etc. I would favour souses and children rather than siblings and parents, perhaps a percentage limit by country and a ban on benefits as has been mentioned until Citizenship has been obtained. Perhaps a compulsory premium towards NHS services dependent on age and medical history?

Just a thought.

Don't you think that if people are going to be required to pay a medical insurance premium, they should also be given a little card to carry around immediately giving them a VAT discount?

[Boiler 45,322]

If you mean VAT pays for the NHS, well it does not.

Hypothecation is a US thing.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

If they are working, which I suspect accounts for a huge swathe of people coming over on most classes of visas, they are paying for the NHS through NI.

[Boiler 45,322]

NHS comes out of general taxation.

[Captain Oates 911]

The UK and for that matter the US are not Democracies, it would be interesting to see what the general populace would decide.

But putting that to one side they did Democratically decide, and the courts overturned them. So that is a bit of a dead end.

Like I said there is no good solution, so which would be the less bad.

I would start by deciding how many the Country can absorb, then allocate that number between the various categories, work family etc. I would favour souses and children rather than siblings and parents, perhaps a percentage limit by country and a ban on benefits as has been mentioned until Citizenship has been obtained. Perhaps a compulsory premium towards NHS services dependent on age and medical history?

Just a thought.

re bolded..looks like I could get in easily !

The thing about the NHS that no foreigner can understand is that it is free at the point of need and no contribution record is required and no payment

It was deliberately constructed like that. We Brits don't leave people to die and the money doesn't matter. It's a very foreign mind set to that in the US.

No American can understand that without reading "In Place of Fear' by Aneurin Bevan who conceived and implemented it

The UK is a democracy because the elected MP's are not representatives - they are elected to follow their own conscience - direct opposite of a referendum style government. The will of the people is expressed by the people they elect and their MP's are not robotic voting machines

There would be majorities for public hanging of paedophiles which is why referendum style decision making was always avoided and MP's are leaders, not servants of the people who voted for them. That is good given the base tendencies in most populations. The behavior of the mob in the French revolution is proof of that.

The money thing is a red herring and this legislation is about stopping the flood of people from Pakistan but it cannot be drawn so narrowly for political reasons

It really is that simple.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Ashud Cocoa

[Boiler 45,322]

The thing about the NHS that no foreigner can understand is that it is free at the point of need and no contribution record is required and no payment

Not true and I do not understand why a foreigner could not understand the concept.

It was deliberately constructed like that. We Brits don't leave people to die and the money doesn't matter. It's a very foreign mind set to that in the US.

we do and money of course does matter.

No American can understand that without reading "In Place of Fear' by Aneurin Bevan who conceived and implemented it

What Bevan had in mind and the current situation is completely divorced.

The UK is a democracy because the elected MP's are not representatives - they are elected to follow their own conscience - direct opposite of a referendum style government. The will of the people is expressed by the people they elect and their MP's are not robotic voting machines

I am not sure if you are serious, the Uk is a Constitutional Monarchy btw.

There would be majorities for public hanging of paedophiles which is why referendum style decision making was always avoided and MP's are leaders, not servants of the people who voted for them. That is good given the base tendencies in most populations. The behavior of the mob in the French revolution is proof of that.

So it is not a Democracy!

The money thing is a red herring and this legislation is about stopping the flood of people from Pakistan but it cannot be drawn so narrowly for political reasons

Probably, and a few other countries.