SIGN UP

Is This What A Hard Line Immigration Policy Should Look Like?

Avatar Image
Kromovaracun | 13:32 Thu 27th Sep 2018 | News
20 Answers
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/27/migrant-deemed-national-security-threat-due-to-tax-error-denied-nhs-care

A highly skilled migrant in an in-demand profession has had his right to work, rent, and receive NHS treatment removed due to a minor correction on his taxes two years ago.

Upon being made aware of the error, this man paid his dues back within 24 hours - but the incident has been used by the Home Office to declare him a 'national security risk' under paragraph 322 (5). As a result he and his family are being driven to homelessness.

75% of appeals against Paragraph 322(5) are successful, but the HO has frozen all cases indefinitely while it reviews the policy.

Is this how we should be treating highly-skilled immigrants who come here to work in shortage professions? Is this what "getting tough" on immigration really looks like?

Answers

1 to 20 of 20rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I suspect we dont know the full circumstances.

If however it is exactly as you have written then it is wrong and I would suspect some over zealous civil servant who should be remove from their job but wont be.

If it is covered by the current rules then I don't see a problem, if the rules change then I'm sure it will be reviewed.
If he has been deemed a national security threat I doubt that it is based on a tax error.AS ymb says, we don't know the full circumstances.
Question Author
It is not just one case and it is not just 322(5).

https://qz.com/1275866/the-british-government-is-using-simple-tax-errors-as-a-reason-to-deport-migrants/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/20/a-life-completely-destroyed-by-one-paragraph-322-immigration-law

The Home Office has been habitually using minor tax corrections as a pretext for deporting highly skilled migrants via either 322(5) or the ludicrously vague "good character clause". Caroline Nokes is, as far as I know, still under investigation for lying to parliament over this issue.
Question Author
//If it is covered by the current rules then I don't see a problem, if the rules change then I'm sure it will be reviewed.//

This is a question about how good/fit-for-purpose the rules are rather than what the rules are.

The current rules are just that, fit for purpose or not, it's not for us to say, if they change then it can be reviewed.
Question Author
Of course it's for us to say whether or not the current rules make sense. How could it not be?
Kromo // how could it not be//
Because you are not in a position to affect the rules one way or another.

Just beat me to it Danny, some folks just have too high an opinion of their own importance.
Question Author
We discuss things we can't effect all the time on here. If you're not interested in discussing this I don't understand why you are posting at all.
I have discussed it Kromo.Should have gone to Specsavers.

I don't see how we effect things tbh, do you mean affect?
Question Author
Yes, I did. Obviously.

Very well, I guess there must be absolutely nothing to say about things we cannot influence. I'll leave you to your threads about the Labour conference and "Islamisation" of France :/

I'm away to walk the dogs while the sun is shining, enough of this nonsense, for now.
This is a classic TROB na na nana na case. They should be ashamed of the way they use peoples lives to make a technical point.
I don't see how a mistake on a tax form equates to a threat to national security. Perhaps we're not getting the full story.
He wouldn't have been stupid enough to claim a rebate on his donations to ISIS, would he?
Agree with others, we are not getting the full story.
The foundations for many of these cases appear to be built on rather shaky ground,as evidenced by that high rate of successful appeals.

This Policy must be looked at again carefully.
Well just on the OP tag line.

Perhaps it is?

Mistakes happen. Over enthusiastic workers stick to the letter of the rule and collateral damage ensues.

I would rather see a firm hand made in as speedy way as possible. No one deserves to be left in limbo and sent to the poor house because of administrative errors and they should be highlighted. But crap happens sometimes to good people.

1 to 20 of 20rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Is This What A Hard Line Immigration Policy Should Look Like?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.