Change from 4 to 5 years for ILR - Help with Ideas

[Rogerio]

Hi guys and gals,

I'd like to hear suggestions about the type of problems caused to Work Permit holders by the recent changes for ILR from 4 to 5 years. I'm just doing a write up and would appreciate some ideas.

I would ask you to be as specific as possible avoiding comments like "this was unfair" and "my expectations were not met".

Thanks

Rogerio

[pumkin]

One problem is if you have kids of university age who were intending on going once they have ILR, these plans would be out the window, as universities require you to have settled status. This will postpone your child's career/future by a further year, while they wait to qualify as a home student. The IND Office have stated in a roundabout way that they have no control over what the universities demand.

[rg1]

ILR gives WP holders freedom to change employment as they wish and also give them freedom to start their own business.

ILR gives everyone a sense of security. When people get that, they start long term planning which makes money flow into UK economy.

[Dawie]

One problem is if you have kids of university age who were intending on going once they have ILR, these plans would be out the window, as universities require you to have settled status. This will postpone your child's career/future by a further year, while they wait to qualify as a home student. The IND Office have stated in a roundabout way that they have no control over what the universities demand.

Have you every heard of something called a student visa? What the hell are you talking about? Universities do absolutely not require anyone to have settled status in order to admit them.

[rg1]

International students are charged twice the amount of normal fees. So having ILR is definitely advantage!

[RobinLondon]

The comment that Dawie made was similar to responses given by Tony McNulty several months ago. He interpreted the higher education argument as silly, for the government had no control over university admissions. Besides, as Dawie added, there are no "quotas"; students with appropriate visas may attend.

I don't think the Home Office knows that non-settled migrants and their families pay lots more for tuition. Twice the home rate is a conservative estimate. Some fees can be three to five times as much! That said, even if they did know, I'm not sure they're likely to care. I would imagine that their logic is something like, "they're here to work, not study". Pity that the same logic doesn't apply equally blithely to the migrants' children.

[Dawie]

While I am totally against the change in the qualifying time for ILR (like most of us), I don't think the university admissions argument is a particularly compelling one to argue against the change.

Most non-settled migrants either have children who are far too young to be even contemplating university (and therefore will obtain ILR well before they are due to enter university) or they have children who are too old be considered dependents anyway and therefore would not benefit from their parents obtaining ILR.

In any case the argument about non-settled migrants paying higher tuition fees is a seperate and, as far as I am concerned, a totally non-related issue to ILR, and might I add, not really related to immigration anyway. Even British citizens who do not meet the residency requirements have to pay the same as international students. In most cases whether or not you qualify for home student fees is determined first by how long you have been in the country and THEN what your immigration status is. If you fail the length of residency requirement then it doesn't matter what your immigration status is.

[RobinLondon]

Actually, that's not entirely true. Anyone without ILR who isn't a British citizen, an EU citizen or a dependent of one must pay the higher foreign fees. If you are a British or EU citizen (or dependent), you must be resident in the UK for three years prior to the start of your studies. That then qualifies you for the cheaper rate. If you are not any of that, you could be in the UK for many years (at least >3) and still pay the higher rate. The only way around this is if you have ILR, which they actually look for. The one small way out is if you are the child of a EU citizen who has been living and working in the EU/UK for three years. If not, then you must wait for ILR. That's just the way it is.

For more information, please see the UKCOSA website from which the following blurb is taken:

Will I pay the 'home' or 'overseas' fee?

Only certain categories of students will be charged the 'home' fee. In very general terms, these are:

- persons who have permanent residence in the UK (ILR) and have been resident in the UK for three years;

- EEA and Swiss migrant workers and their spouses and children in the UK who have been resident in the EEA or Switzerland for three years;

- EU nationals and their children who have been resident in the EEA or Switzerland for three years;

- refugees (recognised by the UK government) and their spouses and children; and

- persons who applied for asylum and as a result have been granted Exceptional Leave, Humanitarian Protection or Discretionary Leave, and their families.

http://www.ukcosa.org.uk/pages/advice.htm

In any case, I agree with Dawie that this will be a difficult point to argue. We might come across looking like scroungers, even if we're not.

[ppron747]

How about

"Although the British Nationality Act 1981 provides for people to be able to apply for naturalisation after five years in UK, the fact that applicants need to have ILR for one year means that people affected by the rule change are being forced to complete a six year residence requirement before being able to regard themselves as fully integrated into British society"?

And (pace other views), I think it is possible to make an argument on university admissions wihtout appearing to be scrounging - if carefully worded - something lile "People affected by the rule change have to wait an extra year before their children can be regarded as "home students" for the purposes of further education, despite having having paid the same taxes at the same rate as anyone else in the UK for the duration of their stay here"

Is it also true that mortgages are more difficult to get, and that rates tend to be higher, for people without ILR?

[Rogerio]

Many thanks to everyone's contributions to this thread. Much appreciated.

Rogerio

[timefactor]

i've managed to get re-mortgage offers (agreement in principle) from A&L and some other banks @ 4.50% ish fixed interest rates. but how can i take this with peace of mind, considering that i'm on WP?

Is it also true that mortgages are more difficult to get, and that rates tend to be higher, for people without ILR?