‘‘ First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me’’.
Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
Before July 2013 if a visa of a family friend was refused it automatically attracted a full right of appeal. The applicant then had a chance to go before an independent Tribunal (Court) and argue their case on all grounds including the incompetence’s of the Home Office. Now they can only appeal on very limited grounds – human rights. This means that hardly anyone can challenge the Home Office decisions and the whole system has become expensive and does not reflect the rule of law at all.
It appears that the Government has in recent years targeted long-standing settled communities such as Pakistanis and
Bangladeshis and some African ones.
The only other way to challenge family visit applications that have been refused is by way of Judicial Review to the High Court – a disproportionate and expensive course of action. Judicial Review is not an appeal right per se and very few applications are considered.
Also it is not an entitlement and an extremely stringent test must be met before the application is even considered by the Courts. Due to high number of applications which inevitably result because of Home Office’s own incompetence’s – even the Judges are throwing out cases for political biased motives to please the Government.
So a small relatively straightforward application can turn into complete nightmare for British settled immigrants who inevitably wish to call their friends/relatives to the UK on important family occasions.
Restoration of appeals rights of Family friends
As above. British settled communities are alarmed at the way the Government callously took away the full rights of appeals. We should (rightly) be allowed to call our relatives from abroad to visit us and maintain our ties. In effect what the Government appears to be saying is – your family lives are not important. We do not want you to maintain any ties abroad.
Restoration of appeals rights of relatives
Prior to 2012 British Citizens could sponsor their husband or wife to come from abroad. They had to satisfy clear and easy to understand rules. They could also include third party sponsorship (in Asian subcontinent communities it is quite normal that children reside with their parents and therefore would have accommodation available).
Now the Government has established a cruel and inhuman financial threshold that British Citizens must satisfy to call their husband or wife over starting at least £18,600 and progressively going up depending on how many children are in family.
It is fact that there are large parts of Britain with immigrant communities sand where children of immigrants who are now settled , These are deprived area and hardly anyone earns over the basic minimum wage – and certainly for many it is impossible to meet the £18,600 threshold. And remember, for each child there is an additional income requirement. This is clearly an infringement of the right to family life.
Return to simplified process and transparent procedures and rules for British citizens that reflect facts on the ‘ground’ – rather than some whimsical assumptions by Teresa May and he entourage working in offices paid for by the .
This arbitrary income threshold should be removed. The financial test should be subjective taking account all the relevant evidence to see whether or not a British Citizen can support his family and should include 3rd party sponsorship from other parties including potential job offers. It should be ‘’adequate’’ without recourse to public funds, instead of objective as it currently stands.
Reduction of £18600 threshold on the basis of marriage
Restoration of old rules about elderly parents settlement as dependent
If a British person wants to call over their elderly parents to come and live with them (even if they have the means to support and accommodate them), have to prove that their parent is in effect chronically or critically ill together with related conditions. They now have to show they need ”long-term personal care” – because of their age, disability or illness’’. And that’s not it – they must show that such care is not available at all in their home country and that their Sponsor has evidence to show they can meet all the costs for such care, if they come to the UK.
The Government announced a ‘Statement of Intent’ – apparently intended to clarify how the new Immigration Rules operate at paragraphs, 118 – 125, namely:
(a) Parent must be unable to wash/dress themselves and
(b) Parent, even with financial and practical help from British child, must be unable to obtain required level of care, because no such care is available and there is no one else in the country who can provide it, or because it is unaffordable and (c) Sponsor must have sufficient income/savings to be able to look after their parent without recourse to public funds.
In practical terms this means – no applicant can meet this cold-heartedly drafted criteria.
In recent refusal decisions the Entry Clearance Officers/Home Office officials when refusing applications have (bizarrely) gone to the extent of providing a list of hospices to families where medical treatment can be accessed in their home countries (even if this means logistically and geographically it is on the other side of the country – where they expect the elderly person can go and access treatment from).
Before the rule changes sponsors had to show they could support them financially and there was no one else willing or able to care for that elderly person. In many instances these were widows over the age of 65. It didn’t matter if they were critically ill or not.
Every human being has a right to enjoy family life but the Government expects settled immigrants to forget about enjoying any kind of family life with their elderly parents. The rights, liberties and choices that relatives wish to make to protect, care and look after their elderly parents is driven by many things including unconditional love, a compassionate outlook, a desire to care for vulnerable family members due to their frailty and old age.
We are all going to die one day. So if some people want to spend their last years with their children they should be allowed to without interference from anyone.
Bring back the old immigration rule regarding elderly parents which created no problems for the British at all.
Restoration of old rules about elderly parents settlement as dependent
Before a Spouse can join their British/settled husband/wife in the UK from a non-EU country they must prove that their English language skill is of a certain level. If they cannot meet this condition their application will be refused. There are few exceptions (i.e. if you are elderly or suffer from mental/physical condition) – but overall this is a discriminatory provision.
Abolish the English Language requirement. How can you expect someone who has lived in a rural village and who never went to school because of financial costs – to learn English for entry clearance purposes?
If it is the case that an English is mandatory then at least there should be further exemptions, for instance if someone has been married for at least 4 years or more – the English requirement should not be mandatory requirement.
Abolition of English test for spouses who married over 4 years
If someone is coming for settlement to join their family in the UK who are British Citizens– whether they make entry clearance or in country applications such a surcharge should not be applicable to them as it creates a disproportionate interference in their family life and can be unaffordable for a lot of people.
Abolition of health charge for them who are coming for settlement
Restoration of indefinite Leave to remain in the marriage is over 4 years
Reduce the probationary period for settlement for spouses from current 5 year limit to the pre 2012, 2 year limit – to allow these families to become integrated in Britain quicker.
The 5 year route prevents families from integrating quickly into the British way of life and makes no logical sense. Where the applicant cannot meet the 5 year route they will have to go down the 10 year route which takes them longer to settle.
Restoration of indefinite Leave to remain in the marriage is over 4 years
For decades settled immigrant communities relied on calling over skilled chefs from the Indian and other communities to carry out work in restaurants and takeaways – to effectively carry out work that British Asians did not want to do. Traditionally red workers to come from abroad – expert chefs and skilled craftsman in curries, sweets and related foods. There are thousands of such restaurants providing and catering for millions of people thought the United Kingdom. But the Government is intent on destroying our cultural ties and unique culinary skills by progressively making it impossible to call them over,
We want the law regarding this area to be changed to reflect the current reality and not some half-baked idea from someone sitting in Whitehall.
grant them settlement.
Mr. Ian Birrell writing for the Daily Telegraph reported on 05 December 2015 ‘These British institutions are a curious fusion of colonialism and globalisation, as well as being a startlingly successful example of immigration. There were only about 300 such places when I was born in 1962, then 10 times as many by the time I became an adult. Today there are some 12,000, most started by people from one impoverished part of Bangladesh. Over the years many of the families that run these small businesses have become pillars of their local communities, while collectively they are a quiet model of Muslim integration that has swollen into a £4.2 billion sector employing at least 100,000 people’ . (to insert source)
Restoration of work permit if skilled worker are not available in the UK
Before 2012 immigration rules allowed domestic workers to come from abroad to work in private households where they had been employed for at least a year. They were granted allowed to stay for 6 to 12 months and then could apply for further extensions of this leave. Then after 5 years they were entitled to apply for settlement. They were also allowed to bring their dependants over.
Domestic helpers provided much needed skills and help in private households where they were needed. Most people who sponsored such workers were wealthy families. Due to their demanding professional careers they were able to rely on domestic workers to support and help them with domestic chores. But the rule was unnecessarily abolished.
Overall the system worked well and thousands of domestic workers arrived from many countries supporting Brutish households all over the country – and in return were paid a decent wage as well as provided with accommodation, food and other thing.
Now the law was abolished and only allows two kinds of domestic workers – (i) if they arriving with their overseas employer – domestic worker in private household and would only allowed to remain for limited time i.e. 6 months or 2) if work for diplomatic staff – private servant in diplomatic household. They can stay longer but there is no route settlement.
The law prior to 2012 should be restored.
Restoration of Domestic helper
Immigrants who are not yet regularized are also being cruelly punished by the Government. They are not allowed to rent and private landlords who house them face a severe financial civil penalty scheme. The draconian law came into operation with the passing of the Immigration Act 2014.
This should be abolished altogether. It is racist law. It is designed to create poverty and force and push human beings into exploitative conditions and underground. It exposes young children whose parents are not yet regularized into a hopeless situation. It degrades Britain.
The Government is in effect saying ‘get lost – we don’t want you – leave or die’. In the process it is creating mass hysteria in the public domain. The Government should grow up and act as if they are Government officials – not racist bigots. On the one hand the country holds itself out as champion of human rights and point sits fingers around the world criticizing others – but in reality it is not only abusing human rights by making such laws but is also degrading the right to be human and avail basic necessities of life.
Abolition of new laws for the Landlords
Immigrants who are not regularized in system are not allowed to work and employers are fined if found to employ them.
Civil penalty scheme against employers was introduced in 2008.
The Government has used it as a means to terrorise legitimate businesses operated by British Citizens who derived from long settled communities in the UK.
It carries out similar operations to Police when it carries out raids it criminalizes our communities even where no such worker is found. There is no redress and no compensation for raids where there is no outcome or result for Home Office. Instead post traumatic stress is created for people working in such business. There should be compensation scheme available to sue the Government for such types of kick-ups.
Immigrants whose cases are pending at Home Office and while their leave is being regularized (whatever their status) should be granted permission to work to allow them to openly and thereby contribute to taxes and the economy. Black market in such workers should not be supported by the Government at all.
On flip side of the coin it can be argued there are not enough jobs for Brutish people. In such cases where people are on benefits are not of pension age – they should be integrated into part-time schemes where they can work as apprentices and learn new skills and at same time provide support in all areas of public life where taxpayers need them example transport, education, roads, home building, looking after parks etc.
By taking away the right to work the Government is pushing these vulnerable people who may also have young children into exploitative jobs and subjecting them to unregulated employers.
How is such a law compatible with the Governments introduction of s.55 to protect children?
The tax-payer pays the Home Office to do a job – it doesn’t pay them to breach human rights.
Improved system for immigration raids
The whole system should be abolished. It is costly, ineffective and is just a white-wash for the tax-payer. Furthermore it just covers up internal mistakes made by the Home Office. This is Teresa May’s brain-child. When Black and Asian minority Solicitors take the Home Office to the Courts and expose their mistakes – it is embarrassing and humiliating for the Government.
In Administrative Review procedure (unlike in appeals) – the same Government Department is allowed to ‘play’ Judge and Jury. We would never allow this in any other area that affects the rights of British Citizens – so why do it to immigrants and also punish settled immigrant communities who may have family members fighting their cases. This should be abolished straightaway. If Britain really is a ‘democracy’ it should not have this system at all.
Abolition of so called Admin Review
For decades the UK had clear, transparent immigration rules. Basic criteria had to be fulfilled and they were. Now students are subjected to a whole barrage of rules. Universities and educational establishments have to absorb loss and put thousands of pounds towards overseeing the Government’s own rules and act as ‘Policeman’ whereas their role is to educate.
The Government’s scheme of issuing licences to educational establishments to sponsor student is ridiculous.
The Government routinely gives out licences and takes the money couple of thousand for each application and then later on closes a lot of these establishments down saying it did inquiry and they are bogus colleges. We create brain-drain of talented young people from the developing world and then we shy away from helping them when things go wrong.
So question is why waste tax payers money – firstly by issuing licences and not doing proper checks and then closing colleges down and wasting money on keeping British People in jobs at the Home Office – but in process ruining the lives of young people who are came to study here?
Abolition of the complexity of rules surrounding student immigration rules including the sponsorship licensing scheme. Simplified application process needed for international students wishing to come to UK for studies. Since 2012 hundreds of changes have been made to student rules.
The Points Based System (inherited from Australia) is inefficient, ineffective and does not reflect ‘reality’. Burdensome bureaucratic procedures have been introduced to make the whole system unnecessarily complex.
Improvement to the Educational licensing system
Legally qualified staff working at Home Office and whoever heads the Immigration Department in Government should be legally qualified person with expertise in Immigration and so should Senior Civil Servants handling such work.
Legally qualified staff working at Home Office
Restoration of all appeal rights in case of any entry clearance application is refused.
Home Office officials sitting in BHC and Embassies abroad are routinely refusing such applications and use standard wording – without proper consideration of the evidence. They are especially doing this to applicants from Indian sub-continent and African countries. They have created a money-making business to squeeze whatever they can from these applicants who have to pay increasingly larger and disproportionate fees for processing of their applications.
The Admin Review procedure does not give these applicants a proper and fair system to challenge refusals made by entry clearance officers (branch of Home Office). Inexperienced staff is routinely refusing applications and the passing to their superiors for another refusal. Appeal rights are fundamentally important as they are public documents. With Admin Review system there is no accountability of such officials and this has created an imbalance in power between Judiciary and Executive (Government). England is supposed to be a democratic state.
Restoration of appeal right in all categories where any application is refused by the Home office
Before 2013 there were 17 rights of appeal available for immigrants. Now there are 4 principally for refusal of asylum and Human Rights cases. The Government abolished the right of appeal in a whole range of immigration cases and replaced with a system of Administrative Review.
This means that if an application is refused by the Home Office – instead of being reconsidered before an independent Tribunal (Court) it is now again reconsidered by another official sitting at the Home Office. Whereas the appeal system enables a public record of the decision to be published – the Administrative Review system does not. A lot of appeals were mounted against the Home Office pre-2013 precisely because of the inadequate staff there that wrongly refused applications. So to cover up these mistakes and to avoid further criticism about the waste of public funds – the Admin Review system was created.
Reason for abolition of appeals provided by Government on their website was it will save £100 million pounds. This figure must be questioned as the inadequacies of the Home Office (which is the primary reason appeals are lodged) will still be costly – only now – it is by way of Admin review and not appeal. The cost will fall on the tax-payer. As there is no right of appeal available now – the only way to challenge a derisory decision made by a Home Office caseworker is to take it to the High Court by making an application for Judicial Review.
This course of action is itself costly and disproportionately so. A lot of High Court Judges are fed up. They are throwing cases out and summoning Black and Asian Solicitors to their Court rooms to explain why they are lodging these cases. They simply cannot cope. The First Tier Tribunal (lower court) was the most appropriate forum for hearing immigration cases (not the High Court). The High Court (Admin and now the Upper Tribunal) are not. The Judges lack the expertise to deal with the complexity and sheet number of immigration cases – not because they are not skilled – but because thousands of such cases are lodged and they simply do not have the resources or man-power leading therefore to unjust decisions and not in accord dance with the law. Judges in High Courts are rightly fed up. They want to give judgments but after proper quality time devoted to them. Rightly so as they are outstanding skilled experts at law and enjoy international fame. But dumping immigration on their doorstep is just nonsense but the Government is intent on destabilizing and creating problems for our historic institutions and establishments.
Restoration of appeal right in all categories where any application is refused by the Home office
Like USA who are 10 years in the country with no criminal record.
Before July 2012 there was a 7 year policy in operation by the Home Office. This meant that if a child had lived in this country for 7 years and there were no countervailing reasons then that child would be granted indefinite leave to remain (settlement). In line with this the parent was also granted settlement.
However such a policy was withdrawn and new law came into operation on 09 July 2012. Now the completion of 7 years became merely a starting point for consideration of such applications. More onerous and stringent conditions also came into effect including a suitability test. Instead of an applicant now being granted settlement, instead they are granted leave to remain for 30 months and the route to settlement is 10 years. Even at the point of making the application for settlement there are rigorous conditions which must be satisfied. This is all nonsense because it prevents families from integrating quicker into British society. It prevents them from fully immersing themselves and thereby is not a sensible change in the law. It should be as it was pre July 2012. Thousands of families have suffered as direct result of this change in law. It does not reflect the reality on the ground. Teresa May is just creating an underprivileged class of citizens which is cruel and callous.
Grant of ILR in 7 years family cases ILR for those who completed 7 years with the children
Restoration of 14 years rule (or reduction to 10 years)
An immigrant who is residing in the UK illegally or unlawfully can only make application for leave to remain on basis of his private life if he has been resident here for at least 20 years. But the conditions attached to grant of such leave are stringent, unrealistic and very difficult to meet.
Before the new rules were introduced by the Government such a person could apply for settlement after 14 years residency. Such an applicant was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (settlement) – but now an applicant will only be given leave to remain and the route to settlement (indefinite leave to remain) will take a further 10 years to complete. We want the 14 years rule for long residency in the UK to be restored in place of the 20 year one.
Under new law an applicant applying under the new law would in reality have to complete 30 years + for any expectation of indefinite leave to remain (settlement). The Home Office in any event refuses a lot of such applications and where it grants leave it is on what is called a 10 year basis so additional residency requirements have to be fulfilled before a person is allowed to become part of Britain.
The current rules are designed to ensure that hardly anyone in such a category will be granted indefinite leave to remain. Initial grant of leave will be for 30 months and then progressively onwards further applications for extension of that leave will have to be made (each application attracting Home Office fees).
There is now a suitability test that applies and also for indefinite leave to remain purposes, an English test. None of these bogus additional criteria existed prior to 2012. When English people went to India – back in the day of Empire no one forced them to do a Punjabi or Hindi test.
This is cruel and inhumane and degrading and not healthy at all. Integration into society should take place as soon as possible.
Grant of ILT on the basis of 14 years.
Before 2010 the student rules were clear and simple. Everyone understood them – public, students, lawyers, universities, media – now under new Government they can’t make their mind up what kind of rules they want so they made increasingly silly and complex rules.
Families of students t be allowed to join them
Before a person who had entered on a work permit to fill shortage of skill was granted indefinite leave to remain (settlement) subject to satisfying certain conditions. But now the Government has extended the period and asking the applicants to fulfill impossible conditions. For example requirement that they have to show they are earning at least £35,000 or whatever the figure set by the Home Office – for instance at the end of the 5 year residency. People working in the catering section indeed many other areas where there are skills shortages hardly earn that much (even in London). This is a dangerous precedent set by the Government. This is an abuse of immigrant’s human rights. If a person leaves their home country – comes to Britain – makes a life here – works pays taxes and related costs – there should no reason not to
This new system (Tier 2) replaced a clear and simplified work permit scheme. Now the rules have become unnecessarily and complex. The Government should abolish this law immediately. It is affecting thousands of innocent people who were given an expectation that by coming to the UK they would ultimately continue to work and settle here.
ILR under WP after 4 years
Restoration of PSW
Before 2012, students of non-EU nationalities could apply to stay in the UK, on completion of their studies –to work). But this route was unnecessarily closed. It did not affect EU nationals. The Post Study Work route allowed talented graduates to use their skills and gave them an opportunity to experience ‘life’ in the UK. Currently, such students can only apply under the Tier-2 category which is far more onerous and the conditions difficult to meet. Native England is an ageing population – who will oil the state machine and keep it competitive at the forefront of international affairs? – we need fresh blood
Restoration of PSW
This should be provided immediately to anyone resident here 5 years plus so that the thousands of immigrants who are not yet regularised and so they can start contributing to the economy by way of taxes from employment and if not that way even if supported by public funds (i.e. benefits) schemes can be created whereby they can be put to use to work on Government civic projects.
HO must made decided within 6 months – If not, meant that applications granted
The Home Office is itself to blame for the thousands of immigrant who are sitting in the UK – because it does not promptly deal with applications. We have hundreds of examples of cases languishing at the Home Office or had been languishing for years – some decades. At the end of the process a refusal to grant any kind of leave is nonsense and these people who are settled (psychologically) in the UK go underground adding to the ever-growing statistics of unregulated individuals.
We should have a new law that saves tax-payers their money and prevents Home Office officials sitting in well paid jobs paid for by the taxpayer from prolonging cases and work. If they can’t make a decision within 6 months (which is more than enough time) the applicant should automatically be granted some kind of leave.
HO must made decided within 6 months – If not, meant that applications granted
We have hundreds of examples of Home Office incompetence’s in their decision making process. When they refuse decisions they tend to just cut and paste reasons and in large number of cases not even tailored to the facts of the case. The Judges installed by the Government turn blind eye to the Governments inefficiencies. If a black or Asian minority solicitor/practitioner made even a small percentage of mistakes made by Home Office officials they would be harassed/bullied and black-listed by the Government’s agency – the Solicitors Regulation Authority. But Home Office staff gets away scot free. There should be same standards applied to those staff. They get away with it because a lot of them carry our immigration work without any proper qualifications. Yet if anyone else did that they would be criminalized. The whole system is unfair and needs to be changed urgently.
The Home Office’s inefficiency is leading to unfair decision making. It is creating problem by employing large numbers of unqualified caseworkers who have no qualification in law at all. They cut and paste decisions routinely. 60% of the time they don’t even get nationality or name of the applicant correct – so how can they even understand the facts. These are not isolated mistakes but regular and routine ones.
An example of their cut and paste decisions which they will send and have sent out to thousands of people when refusing their application and then refusing application again apparently after carrying out an Admin Review (even though facts are different is as follows):
‘’23 November 2015
ADMIN REVIEW RESPONSE
I have reviewed the decision to refuse entry clearance and I am not minded to overturn both decisions as the decisions were made in accordance with the Immigration Rules, and I cannot see that any procedural error took place at the time that the decisions were made by the Entry Clearance Officer. Each application is assessed on its own individual merits and I am satisfied that the Entry Clearance Officer assessed all documentation submitted.
On the basis of the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the ECO’s decisions to refuse the applications for the reasons given in the refusal notice was based on evidence, was considered on the balance of probabilities and was in accordance with law. I have noted in the Admin Review you have merely repeated your circumstances and failed to state how the ECO has legally reached the incorrect decision. The ECO correctly assessed the evidence and the current application, the ECO concluded that you have failed to meet the relevant Immigration Rules for the stated reasons found in the refusal notice. The ECO must be satisfied that you are being sponsored to undertake a genuine role and are appropriately qualified to undertake, the role for which the Certificate of Sponsorship was assigned on the basis of the evidence you submitted the ECO was not satisfied. Furthermore upon reviewing your Administrative review request it is very difficult to follow as to the exact reasons why you are challenging the decision.
It is of course open to you to make a fresh application for entry clearance and to address the concerns raised by the Entry Clearance Officer.
For the above reasons, I do not concede any part of your claim, Yours sincerely Entry Clearance Manager’’
This is a good example of how the cut and paste decisions are routine. They are hardly ever tailored to the facts or evidence. The Home Office milks thousands of pounds from the immigrants for fees and then tax payers and comes with this kind of decision.
IPP has hundreds of these kinds of decisions as examples and countless others of the Home Office inefficiency including 1 case where someone’s case had been pending at the Home Office for 23 years (despite reminders to the Home Office to make a decision). When Home Office finally made a decision on the application it deiced to grant some kind of leave but not settlement. Eventually this individual had no option but to apply for Judicial Review and Home Office decided to withdraw and give him the leave requited.
Disciplinary action against HO staff who cut and paste the decision
From April 2015 most applications (both out-country entry clearance ones to gain entry into the UK for more than 6 months) and any application made in the UK for leave to remain is charged a health surcharge. The cost can be astronomical for a family who has children.
Applicants have to pay the surcharge before their application will be considered by the Home Office. The surcharge should really be optional as it deters illegal immigrants, overstayer, people with families, elderly persons and even young single people from making applications especially in country to regularize their status – because they simply cannot afford it. So in terms of ‘costs’ – the UK is actually making a loss.
These people who could potentially apply to regularize their stay but who are not are being afforded an opportunity to become transparent. The reason why the Government introduced the surcharge is to help fund the NHS – this is a noble cause indeed. We suggest that Government should invest some of the money from its own budget that it sends abroad for varying reasons. Also it is discrimination in that poor vulnerable individual are asked to pay the surcharge but applicants in the Tier 2 (Intra-company Transfer) schemes are not. Surely it should be the other way around? Companies should pay surcharges for their employees and their dependants and vulnerable immigrants who are trying to make them transparent should not.
Make Health Charge optional
Before July 2012 the discretionary leave to remain route was available to anyone who could show that there were exceptional circumstances and/or Article reasons (right to private/family life), why they should be granted leave to remain, (albeit they could not meet any other type of immigration route). This route helped regularize vulnerable members of society and allowed them to become transparent and part of the British way of life.
But sadly this route was abolished by the Government for 99% of cases where immigrants could have potentially could have benefitted, albeit it remains for a minority of cases (such as where there is evidence of people trafficking). In so doing, the minority of cases where discretionary leave can be granted are victimized in that after completion of 6 years (as under the old law) they will now not be entitled for indefinite leave to remain (settlement).
Instead a 10-year route to settlement is operation and even then, once that period of time is completed settlement will only be granted once a difficult English language test has been met as well as other conditions.
By abolishing the law prior to 2012 regarding discretionary leave the Government has instead created a bigger underclass of immigrants who have gone ‘underground’ – fearful that if they apply their cases will be rejected and there is no hope at all.
Restoration of ILR for DL on 6 years.
There are thousands of immigrants who are not regularized and who have young children who need to be ferried around and/or are suffering from chronic illnesses who rely on transport and cars. But again the Government’s ill thought out laws. These immigrants used to pay road tax and contribute in some way but now even this has been taken away from them.