Leaked Post-Brexit EU/EEA Immigration strategy paper reported in the Guardian

Leaked document reveals UK Brexit plan to deter EU immigrants
Worth reading in full. Some excerpts are below.

...
“Put plainly, this means that, to be considered valuable to the country as a whole, immigration should benefit not just the migrants themselves but also make existing residents better off,” the paper says.
...
places tough new restrictions on their rights to bring in family members. Potentially, this could lead to thousands of families being split up.
...
Plans to scrap EU rules on the rights of extended family members to reside in the UK. The document says “there is virtually no limit on the distance of the relationship between the EU citizen and the family member” in the current system. “We propose to define family members as direct family members only, plus durable partners,” it adds.
...
The Home Office says that the new EU immigration system will not necessarily include the same rules as currently applied to non-EU migration. In particular it says it is considering whether the existing system of sponsorship and a £1,000-a-head immigration skills charge will be applied to EU migration.

Home Office leak shows unpicking of EU nationals' family reunion rights

...
The document also confirms that the forthcoming immigration bill will only “switch off” regulations implementing EU free movement rules.
...
For the first time it cites specific examples, quoting three cases in particular – Zambrano, Surinder Singh and Metock – which it claims have given “EU nationals rights to enter and remain in the UK which they would not otherwise have”.
...

There is nothing new in my opinion other than more details. Basically, after 2022 there will be either British or non-British immigration status in most of the official documents.I think it is fair enough as there is a plenty of time ahead for all EU citizens who wish to continue living and working in the UK, to settle their immigration status. It does not make sense for the Brexit voters that the UK would be out of EU and the immigration policy would be still same.

Manchester171 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:33 pm

It does not make sense for the Brexit voters that the UK would be out of EU and the immigration policy would be still same.

But the results of the General Election 2017 with Labour doing much better than expected means that we have voted a soft Brexit and for keeping our current immigration policy the same.

Manchester171 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:33 pm

Basically, after 2022 there will be either British or non-British immigration status in most of the official documents.

You mean that it will all end in Tiers.

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:32 pm

Manchester171 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:33 pm

It does not make sense for the Brexit voters that the UK would be out of EU and the immigration policy would be still same.

But the results of the General Election 2017 with Labour doing much better than expected means that we have voted a soft Brexit and for keeping our current immigration policy the same.

Manchester171 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:33 pm

Basically, after 2022 there will be either British or non-British immigration status in most of the official documents.

You mean that it will all end in Tiers.

What is the definition of soft Brexit? leg out/leg in? Labour did well because of some local issues that Mrs Theresa May screwed up in her manifesto like social care funds, dementia tax, winter fuel...etc but not because of immigration.


I think the Home Office is gradually trying to adapt the Australian's immigration system. especially the working scheme system.
For skilled non EU will follow the same route: Job vacancy adv, skype interview, sponsorship approval, working visa
For skilled EU, they probably will enter the UK as a visitor based on employer's invitation letter (say NHS invites a European doctor) and then secure an employment contract from within the UK. This similar to the working system in Dubai or Saudi Arabia where I worked before. I am not sure of course what the negotiation will end up to. But I see there is a lay back from David Davis based on that all the immigration laws that cover the non EU ( non-British) are already active and they just need to treat the EU citizens (non-British as well) in the same way. Just simple like that, they don't need to create another law, especially for EU residents.

For non-skilled EU citizens who will enter after the grace period, I think they will have difficulty to get on with their life here in how they used to have in the past.

The thing is we don't yet know what 'settled' will mean after Brexit. The existing DCPR will not be valid. We don't know who and how will be considered a permanent resident. The notion that an EU citizen is a dangerous chancer and a burden to society unless proven otherwise has finally been swallowed hook, line and sinker by the populace.

We don't know if and how the British Courts will protect EU citizens, let alone the Home Office. I frankly don't know where this is going to end. One thing I know, this is not going to end well.

rooibos wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:32 pm

The thing is we don't yet know what 'settled' will mean after Brexit. The existing DCPR will not be valid. We don't know who and how will be considered a permanent resident.

Things can still change- negotiations with the EU and necessary legislation in Parliament- however, you can read the current Government proposal:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/status-of-e ... ed-to-know

The current Government proposal is that the DCPR will cease to be valid in March 2019. There might be an extension of EU rules for a period of time after that (which would likely extend the DCPR validity) and there might be a further extension of the document's validity after that. But sooner or later- if you're planning to stay in the United Kingdom as a non-British citizen you're going to need a domestic U.K. immigration document evidencing your status. No different to living as a non-citizen permanent resident in any other country.

There is a joint U.K.-EU technical note on the details of the negotiations so far- what's agreed in principle and where there are still differences.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ens-rights

We don't know if and how the British Courts will protect EU citizens, let alone the Home Office.

Protect EU citizens from what? The Government's proposal may not yet cover every possible scenario but it seems clear that EU citizens will, in general, be placed in the same position as non-EU citizen permanent residents of the United Kingdom, or able to acquire U.K. permanent residence. There is obviously some work to be done on the details but is the principle so unreasonable?

Leaked immigration plans suggest Thelma & Louise Brexit for UK > 4 things wrong with the goverment's Brexit immigration plans.

JAJ wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:40 am

Protect EU citizens from what? The Government's proposal may not yet cover every possible scenario but it seems clear that EU citizens will, in general, be placed in the same position as non-EU citizen permanent residents of the United Kingdom, or able to acquire U.K. permanent residence. There is obviously some work to be done on the details but is the principle so unreasonable?

Are you being serious? It is unreasonable because there are no guarantees that these supposed rights we're going to to acquire, if ever, will be for life. Any British court can throw our rights out of the window if and when they please. Let me explain that to you in other words: this is a deliberate move to make us leave one way or the other. Why would I want to pay NI and pension contributions into this country if there is even a remote risk I might be kicked out at one point? Like the majority of long term EU residents in UK, I'm planning my own exit strategy. I do not trust the British institutions to give me the same level of protection that the EU treaties have given me so far.

Yes, Rooibos, you are right- its a false sense of security...being lulled into waiting for a post brexit heaven. Both sides have the capacity to become complete demons, so for those that can, get your affairs in order in time. Don't trust any of them. You only need to see how HO are manipulating Surinder Singh to know there is no honour left in governments, all they seem to be are the instruments of corporate greed!

That's my rant for the day. You all have a good one!!

greatscott wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:04 am

Yes, Rooibos, you are right- its a false sense of security...being lulled into waiting for a post brexit heaven. Both sides have the capacity to become complete demons, so for those that can, get your affairs in order in time. Don't trust any of them. You only need to see how HO are manipulating Surinder Singh to know there is no honour left in governments, all they seem to be are the instruments of corporate greed!

That's my rant for the day. You all have a good one!!

Cmon, whilst I'm not a Brexiter the SS thing was totally abused by people solely to frustrate UK rules, not for it's original purpose.

I applaud the UK gov for that, credit where credit's due.

What was its original purpose according to you?
How could it have been abused if it was according to EU law.
Fair enough the UK doesn't like following EU law so it is brexiting. I have no problem with that but even and especially if you are a government you must follow the law to which you have signed up, until as in the case of brexit, you are out and free from those laws that you had signed up to.
How freaking simple is that to understand?
And SS according to EU law is perfectly understood by all of the EU, except the UK. The UK since dec 2016 is breaking the law, simple as that.

And please, do us all a favour, and read SS law as applied in the EU. How can people abuse the law if they follow it. If they don't follow it, sure, kick them out BUT you can't kick people out just because you don't like the law, YOUR own law the law you agreed to as a member of the EU.

greatscott wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:09 pm

And SS according to EU law is perfectly understood by all of the EU, except the UK.

That is not entirely correct if taken at an EEA level. Most of the EU has a more cohesive immigration system, even for non-EEA citizens. The UK (and Ireland and Denmark, if I am not mistaken) opted out of this unified immigration system.

Even other countries in the EEA that have independent immigration policies have alternate interpretations of the Surinder Singh and other case-based legal constructs. See this thread about a Norwegian couple being questioned by the Norwegian UDI over their use of the SS route (in particular, see points 4 & 5. They seem to be eerily similar to the UK's interpretation).

Just to clarify on a later post, the SS route comes from a court judgment. The UK is required to abide by the judgments of the ECJ. But the UK had no political vote on it (though there was a Scottish judge on the bench).

This post on the LSE Brexit blog is about financial services, but it highlights (in my opinion) the reason why the SS and other case-based legal constructs have a rough ride in the UK.

But it is also a question of legal tradition. EU legal interpretation is purposive not literal and the wording of provisions is seen as an approximation to what is enacted, with the true force often being wider than what is written on the page. Such an approach is shunned in successful financial centres for its lack of certainty, which has a chilling effect on business.

EU legal interpretation is significantly different from the way an English court would interpret law. Which is why UK laws (and court judgments) are written in a much more detailed manner. Compare the detail of the UK Immigration Rules to the brevity and generality of the EU DIrective 2004/38/EC. We are of course entirely different legal systems. The civil law system of the Continent is only now developing jurisprudence constante, which we had (as binding precedent) for centuries.

Conversely, the UK has a tradition of sticking to the text of the law (or binding judgment), while the EU and other civil law systems allow judges much more latitude in interpreting the laws according to the intent of the legislature. Given that it is practically impossible to divine the collective intent of any group of people (like Elizabeth I, we have no window into other people's souls), that essentially allows the judges to rewrite the law to fit their belief system, irrespective of the actual tenor of the law. For instance, Directive 2004/38/EC has nothing about EEA citizens returning to their home countries after a stay in another EEA member-state. A British judge would not have given that argument any regard. But European judges, steeped in a different legal system, interpreted the Directive so as to include the returning EEA citizens.

You may disagree with this post, but I hope you gain a better understanding why there are differences between the UK and the EU when it comes to interpretation of case-based legal constructs. It is not just a Brexit thing, it goes back centuries (tempted to say "time immemorial", but some people here may know that that phrase has a specific legal meaning. Google it).

Everything you've said is interesting but only really serves to deflect and distract...in my view. And quite frankly, googling 'time immemorial" is completely meaningless to the discussion.
Please re-read my posts. The UK is breaking the law. Please research Surinder Singh, and its application according to EU law. One of your previous comments in another thread about the UK only "reinterpretting the law" is just nonsense. This is not a personal attack on you, I just think you are wrong on this, sorry.

rooibos wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:58 am

Are you being serious? It is unreasonable because there are no guarantees that these supposed rights we're going to to acquire, if ever, will be for life. Any British court can throw our rights out of the window if and when they please. Let me explain that to you in other words: this is a deliberate move to make us leave one way or the other. Why would I want to pay NI and pension contributions into this country if there is even a remote risk I might be kicked out at one point? Like the majority of long term EU residents in UK, I'm planning my own exit strategy. I do not trust the British institutions to give me the same level of protection that the EU treaties have given me so far.

Of course.
There are no guarantees of anything "for life"- in any country, anywhere. Even the EU laws to which you refer are not set in stone and could be changed- by the EU member states- at a future date.

Risk of being asked to leave- if you already have permanent resident status, etc. and obtain the required documentation, maintain residence- approximately the same as the risk of Australia or Canada forcing all permanent residents to leave. In other words- around 0%. The United Kingdom, either inside or outside the EU- is a democratic nation with a free press and a relatively independent court system. Although there may be anomalies in individual cases there is absolutely no chance of some kind of mass deportation. Really.

If you become a British citizen- also, approximately 0% chance of being asked to leave. With the added benefits that any legal/criminal problems you may encounter would not lead to deportation and you can leave the U.K. for as long as you like without needing to maintain permanent residence. No different to Australia or Canada.

But if you want to live in the European Union- and be subject to EU laws/courts (for whatever that's worth)- then Britain post-withdrawal from the EU may not be what you are looking for. That said- if you return to your EU home country, then your "protections" under the EU Treaties are limited as well. You may wish to consider all the facts before making your decision. Perhaps you are over-thinking this?

JAJ wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:48 pm

Risk of being asked to leave- if you already have permanent resident status, etc. and obtain the required documentation, maintain residence- approximately the same as the risk of Australia or Canada forcing all permanent residents to leave. In other words- around 0%.

JAJ, I'm afraid you don't seem to appreciate the concerns of many people on this forum. A sweeping statement like that is misleading. I can think of one particular group for example, SS, where this certainty is being swept under the carpet as we speak. Non-EU dependants of EU nationals. As long as they have PR you say? Wel,l my spouse has PR (been here 5 years arriving 2012- all ok, given a RC) - automatically a PR now according to EU rules, we were told repeatedly in every last EU document that was published. YET, in 2016 the british government has begun a process of manipulating the rules. So now there's an EEA2 (PR) process to go through. So do they or do they not have PR????

So do they or do they not have PR????

Why does it take over 9 months (to date) to confirm what has already (apparently) been confirmed??, based on EXACTLY the same documentation submitted 5 years ago. If these people leave the UK to go visit sick parents etc (RC is expired) they might not be allowed to board the plane back, let alone be let back in.

I think your comforting words are misleading.

JAJ wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:48 pm

Risk of being asked to leave- if you already have permanent resident status, etc. and obtain the required documentation, maintain residence- approximately the same as the risk of Australia or Canada forcing all permanent residents to leave. In other words- around 0%.

But the threat is not to all permanent residents. Originally, the publicised threat was to those with criminal records - criminals would not get settled status. Now, however, according to the August report on the status of negotiations, criminality up to the date of exit will be tolerated to the extent required by the current rules. So, which permanent residents are to be denied settled status? It would be so much simpler (and possibly cheaper) to treat the issue of a DCPR or PRC as a grant of settled status, but there's still no intention of doing this. There are three obvious categories:
(1) those here under Surinder Singh rules (possibly even including EU nationals if they won't descend to faking employment)
(2) those who had a retained right of residence because of divorce (I am assuming the HO won't be cruel enough to go after widows and widowers) - they lose the retained right on gaining permanent residence, so the 'generous offer' does not preclude excluding them!
(3) those who qualified as extended family members by holding a residence card.

I suppose they could expand the rejection to cases where an EEA national married his lover so said lover could live in the UK under the EEA Regulations - in which case both are liable to expulsion. But they have claimed the right to do that even before exit.

JAJ wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:48 pm

The United Kingdom, either inside or outside the EU- is a democratic nation with a free press and a relatively independent court system. Although there may be anomalies in individual cases there is absolutely no chance of some kind of mass deportation. Really.

Would expelling the Surinder Singh beneficiaries be a 'mass expulsion'?

JAJ wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:48 pm

If you become a British citizen- also, approximately 0% chance of being asked to leave.

And as yet, there is no policy of denying citizenship to Surinder Singhers.

JAJ wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:48 pm

With the added benefits that any legal/criminal problems you may encounter would not lead to deportation and you can leave the U.K. for as long as you like without needing to maintain permanent residence. No different to Australia or Canada.

And very different to the Netherlands. However, the UK has had laws to denaturalise expatriate naturalised citizens.

One thing that has worried me is the current emphasis on EU citizens lawfully resident in the UK. I had assumed that the 'generous offer' would cover residents EU citizens not resident under the regulations, e.g. uninsured non-working wives of British citizens. They are now beginning to seem as vulnerable as non-EU Surinder Singh beneficiaries.

Well, well...our Surinder Singh application has been refused and Eind case law completely ignored. They are retroactively applying their Dec 2016 changes, with the result that we stand no chance because we cannot go back in time.

How can anyone trust this government to do the right thing? Unbelievable.

greatscott wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:00 am

JAJ wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:48 pm

Risk of being asked to leave- if you already have permanent resident status, etc. and obtain the required documentation, maintain residence- approximately the same as the risk of Australia or Canada forcing all permanent residents to leave. In other words- around 0%.

JAJ, I'm afraid you don't seem to appreciate the concerns of many people on this forum. A sweeping statement like that is misleading. I can think of one particular group for example, SS, where this certainty is being swept under the carpet as we speak. Non-EU dependants of EU nationals. As long as they have PR you say? Wel,l my spouse has PR (been here 5 years arriving 2012- all ok, given a RC) - automatically a PR now according to EU rules, we were told repeatedly in every last EU document that was published. YET, in 2016 the british government has begun a process of manipulating the rules. So now there's an EEA2 (PR) process to go through. So do they or do they not have PR????

So do they or do they not have PR????

Why does it take over 9 months (to date) to confirm what has already (apparently) been confirmed??, based on EXACTLY the same documentation submitted 5 years ago. If these people leave the UK to go visit sick parents etc (RC is expired) they might not be allowed to board the plane back, let alone be let back in.

I think your comforting words are misleading.

The Home Office have never really liked Surinder Singh and can't wait to get rid of it.

The Home Office document deliberately cites the Surinder Singh case because it anticipates a time in which we can move back to a period when subjective and more arbitrary immigration rules can be reintroduced.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -documents

There is no intention to give false reassurance, etc.- and it's already noted that there likely will be anomalies in individual cases.

However, instead of giving credence to every newspaper article (speculation) and "leaked" document, perhaps it would be more productive to at least conduct a self-assessment against the most recent published Government intentions.

And also consider what steps should be taken in the short term to protect and/or document status. Example- is it a good idea to obtain an EEA permit or Permanent Resident document? Is there an option to take out British citizenship? Should any family members currently on EEA status consider applying for leave under the (domestic) Immigration Rules?- and so on. There's likely no single strategy that will work for all situations and sometimes there may be more than one option with no clear right or wrong answer.

Other than that- there's probably not much to do other than wait and see how both the negotiations with the EU and domestic immigration legislation/policy work out. Things could look very different in 6-9 months. It is almost certain that whatever the outcome is, it will not be exactly the same as what the Government has so far stated.