Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About spooky

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. Intra... Those foreign Companies have the advantage over British Companies - not the workers, who simply earn less. This has already been discussed and is a problem created by HMRC that is supposed to have been closed. They also avoided National Insurance contributions on the 'allowances'. I have already said that I believe this to have been an unfair situation. I have also already pointed out that such workers are no longer qualifying for permanent residence through the ICT route for such visas issued since 2010. Apparently you think it is wrong for this situation to have occurred (causing British Companies to be disadvantaged) but you think I am talking rubbish when I say that it is wrong to put overseas workers at a disadvantage. I think I see where you are coming from and it has nothing to do with fair treatment.
  2. Quite possibly. The Adult Naturalisation form covers applicants who qualify based on a range of different prior qualifying criteria. ILR will have been granted for many applicants only after passing the Life in the UK Test. I have a feeling that the test really did nothing more than give the Government another headline to say they were 'doing something about immigration'. I remember a very precisely worded radio advertisement saying that they were committed to reducing the number of skilled workers coming to the UK... quote... what a relief. I don't believe that there is a central cohesive policy for immigration in this country - they simply roll out new rules every few months in pursuit of the next headline or as a reaction to the latest story in the press. Again, the shame of it is that such focus is being placed on stopping people coming here that are not exactly a burden on the country. I seem to remember a 'British jobs for British workers' slogan being thrown around in response to an Italian Company in the UK giving preference to overseas workers - Italians if I recall correctly. Next thing you know there are more rules to make it harder for non-EU people to come here. Not to say my memory might not be working perfectly of course!
  3. Nothing personal intended but there is no logical or reasonable argument for saying that two different groups of people earning the same amount of income should pay different rates of tax. If you are going to tax based on nationality you might as well go the whole hog and tax based on colour, sex or whether you can sing in tune. Ridiculous. It would have been the HSMP and you appear to have taken a test that was not necessary for ILR (Permanent Residence). No harm done though. Sorry but that is wrong. To say it is optional would imply that the applicant decides whether or not to take the test and that is absolutely not the case. The types of applications and applicants that do not have to take the Life in the UK Test at some point are quite limited. The test is daft though. Didn't even need to see the Daily Mail logo to know you read it. EU citizens are doing quite a lot of this under the EEA Family route.
  4. For some reason I don't think I can edit a post, but thought it worth pointing out that the Tier 1 visa did not exist 7 years ago, so I don't know how you came here on a visa that had not yet been created.
  5. Whether or not they can afford it (in a tough market) is irrelevant. The Tier 1 visa is the one that I am referring to and a 50% rise in fees when it was already the most expensive and most other visas had a 2% or less rise is hardly reasonable. Would it be reasonable if you were to perhaps pay a higher rate of tax than those who were born here? People should be treated equally and fairly. The criteria were low because the Home Office had got the country multipliers wrong for countries such as Nigeria, and this was especially the case as inflation took hold and the Home Office failed to adjust their criteria. Hardly the fault of migrants to take advantage of an opportunity presented. This was all quite some time ago so perhaps you are not familiar with the current criteria and how they have evolved. I would imagine that your last extension when you would have had to claim points would have been 4 or 5 years ago. It is the 'Life in the UK Test', although if you came here 7 years ago it would have been initially on an HSMP visa prior to the JR Ruling and you would not have had to take that test, so something seems odd about your statement. There may or may not have been a lot of work-related people there but it is not a good idea to just make assumptions. To say that there were about 100 there and most had serious challenges speaking English would imply that you spoke to most of them? Perhaps you overheard the majority of those 100 people struggling to have conversations? You know that some visas have higher language requirements than others? I must admit that it was quite funny when US citizens had to prove their English language ability, as was the case for a while.
  6. I would find it hard to disagree. I am not a fan of the rights without responsibility / sense of entitlement culture that I have encountered but I don't think that is confined to our young people.
  7. Very good points, although I am not convinced that sufficient numbers of our youth have been properly equipped through the education system.
  8. My job doesn't depend on not being convinced though. I tend to deal with a certain type of migrant and a variety of corporate Clients - regardless of current rules there is always a demand and always a requirement for assistance. The only only thing that changes is the type of visa required - not the requirement for a visa. I am also more than capable of taking an objective view even if the service I provide goes against my personal view.
  9. Current rules are intended to transition to a situation where you can stay for a maximum of 6 years and then must leave the UK - regardless of how valuable you are to the employer after working here for 6 years, what roots you have set down and what family you have settled here. It seems currently to be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to ICTs - many rules that have been brought in over the last few years have been ill-conceived and resulted in court action that UKBA have lost. My point about EU migration is that it is part of the problem (not all of it of course) but as nothing can be done about free movement the genuine non-EU migrants carry a disproportionate burden. In a tough economic climate some migrants have seen their 2-year extension fee raised from £750 to £1,500, or £1,800 if they want a decision in a day instead of the usual 4 or so months. We would be furious if we were treated in such a way. Many people see the migration problem relating primarily to low paid (low skilled) work, especially with regard to how it relates to youth unemployment - it is not the non-EU migrants who primarily undertake such work, yet they are the ones that the Government is focussed on. As I have said before, managed migration tends to be self-levelling - much is dictated by supply and demand. There are always going to be exceptions such as students signing up for bogus colleges who then disappear. It is worth considering that it was the UKBA who approved those 'colleges' to sponsor people in the first place though, thus creating the opportunity which of course some took. In a similar way, HMRC striking a deal over tax and NI gave those Companies a clear advantage when using the ICT route and of course they took it. This country seems to have a problem with a bit of protectionism, unlike places such as India where you are not really going to be able to set up a business without an Indian being involved (unless something has changed recently - not particularly my area, although I did get permission to work in India for a Client recently and I didn't think it was at all difficult, albeit at a senior level). I do also have Indian Companies as Clients who have set up in the UK and are employing UK workers as well as using the ICT route where required - jobs are being created for British workers by these overseas Companies. I could recount many situations where British business has reaped significant benefit from employing overseas workers with the resulting increase in UK jobs. Many British workers go overseas and create the same benefits for other countries. You cannot be seen to get a non-EU worker in preference to a native worker - for most occupations in the UK you need to satisfy a Labour Market Test and show that you have tried to recruit throughout the EU. Of course, there is some manipulation that goes on but this gets picked up far more often these days. I have Clients in very specialised areas who not only employ every UK and EU person they can but also still need additional people and thus have to sponsor non-EU citizens - they would much rather not have to do so. And yes, they do also take on UK graduates to train them up. You tend to only hear negatives though, and mostly aimed at low-skilled areas or abuse of the system. Again, it is important to define 'immigrants'. It is certainly not the case that the vast majority of non-EU immigrants are low wage workers - quite the opposite. I haven't particularly read through what I have written as I didn't have much time but hopefully there is not too much waffle and repetition and some points are useful. I do believe that immigration can be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Our education system and a host of other factors create a gap that might not otherwise need to be filled but that is another discussion (or 10). The OPs original point was a good one though. I fear that the only way that the Government can even get close to their target come election time is to make policy that is not particularly of benefit to the country. Policy decisions made on the hoof with the sole purpose of garnering desired headlines and securing votes seems to be what we get, instead of creating carefully thought out policies designed to be fair and benefit the country.
  10. Not sure that I really addressed this. Firstly, nobody can go straight from ICT to Citizenship. ILR is required first. ICTs used to count toward this but for new entrants from 2010 the ICT no longer counts toward ILR. This change would seem to have already addressed one of your concerns. Secondly, you seem primarily interested in IT and I guess this must be your sector. You are of course aware that this is not the only sector. Heavy use of the ICT route by certain Indian companies did result in cheaper labour for them and this was allowed by HMRC - I think that was dreadful. HMRC allowing it does not mean that the whole ICT route is therefore bad and should be stopped. An HMRC policy effectively allowing avoidance of tax and NI is not the fault of UKBA and not an argument to stop migration. The usual Tier 2 visas (work permits) do NOT result in cheaper labour as minimum salary levels must be met and must be seen to be paid. It is nonsense to say that managed migration enables access to cheaper labour - far too broad a statement and largely untrue. Certain industries in which our EU friends can come here and offer cheaper labour have encountered a similar impact to the one you saw in IT, except there is nothing that can be done to limit EU migration. Efforts to reduce the number of non-EU migrants coming here (this is all that the Government can do anything about) do not mean that net migration will fall as there is no control over the number of British citizens (not) leaving, the number of returning British citizens and the number of EU migrants. There is an economic impact from reducing what Cameron liked to call 'good migration'. Many decent hard working migrants in the UK are feeling rather victimised at present. I am sure if any of us were working overseas and the cost of remaining there suddenly doubled we would not be too thrilled about it.
  11. Didn't even click on the link you provided - did read the quote though but didn't realise it was a recent article. I do know that when the first limits were introduced they were not even hit - demand was less than the limits. Nice headline to say they had limited work permits though.
  12. That's part of the problem with Cameron choosing net migration as a target. Quite daft. Add the potential for more EU migration as discussed above and the Tories might have to stop all educated workers from coming here so there is enough room for all the others. There is a very real danger of the economic benefits for some types of migration being lost just so that the required headline can be published and a target met.
  13. Name calling instead of discussing the topic at hand? And I am puerile? Seriously? Nice welcome to the forum though. Hopefully not everyone takes that attitude.
  14. It's intra, not inter... I have not thrown statistics around so I have no idea what I am supposed to quote a source for? I see no reason why I should have mentioned IR35 or what difference that makes to what has been said. I am exactly what I have said and I am also a British Citizen since birth from British parents (not that it should be relevant), but if the best you can do is to attack me rather than discuss what has been said then I think that says a lot about the strength of your position.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.