4 ms·

I don't want to come out as being insensitive, but what is the complain about exactly? I was expecting more of an anecdote due to a quirk in the law, but it en

by dudul 11y ago

I don't want to come out as being insensitive, but what is the complain about exactly? I was expecting more of an anecdote due to a quirk in the law, but it ends up being a weird rant about how a change in policy somehow makes the entirety of the UK hostile to immigrants. If you're not a citizen of the country you have to expect these changes in laws and regulations. What a group of politicians puts together, another can undo. Today liberals give "free" visas to "undocumented" immigrants, tomorrow conservatives will cancel them and deport them. I am an immigrant myself and I do understand that until I fill all the criteria for citizenship I am not equal to the citizens of the country, that's just how it is. The only way to be sure that you won't have any trouble is to be a citizen.

gambiting 11y ago
You missed the entire point of the article. You know how the banknotes say "I promise to pay the bearer on demand", which basically means that the Bank of England promises to always pay you the amount stated on the banknote,no matter how old it is? Yeah, that's basically what her visa was supposed to be - when she was issued one by the UK government the government made a promise to grant her an indefinite right to stay in the UK and not require any further permissions. Except that they did. They introduced this new mechanism for all immigrants which means that she effectively lost what was given her by the government once, even though the government promised to never take it away. That's the problem.
- dudul 11y ago
  Based on your comment, I did get the point because this is exactly what I was talking about. Does the visa state "this visa is irrevocable, you will never have to do anything to be allowed to stay in the country, until the end of times, ever, we promise."? Maybe it does, and then I'm happy to be wrong. In politics and legislation, there is no "promises", no "indefinite". Laws are the reflection of what society wants at a certain point in time - at least in functioning democracies. For everything, not just immigration. I'm not saying it doesn't suck. I've had my fair share of dealing with immigration regulations and I know how awful it is, but it is foolish to think that a right to residency will never be questioned and subject to different rules. Only citizenship is definite.
- rlpb 11y ago
  > ...right...even though the government promised to never take it away I don't think this is true. She had Indefinite Leave to Remain. The Indefinite part of that just means that it didn't have an expiry date. Revokability has nothing to do with it. (OTOH, Wikipedia tells me that an ILR is revokable on specific grounds, so perhaps revocation is limited. But that list can clear be changed by statute, and there's no promise that it won't be)

by dudul 11y ago

gambiting 11y ago

You missed the entire point of the article. You know how the banknotes say "I promise to pay the bearer on demand", which basically means that the Bank of England promises to always pay you the amount stated on the banknote,no matter how old it is? Yeah, that's basically what her visa was supposed to be - when she was issued one by the UK government the government made a promise to grant her an indefinite right to stay in the UK and not require any further permissions. Except that they did. They introduced this new mechanism for all immigrants which means that she effectively lost what was given her by the government once, even though the government promised to never take it away. That's the problem.

dudul 11y ago
Based on your comment, I did get the point because this is exactly what I was talking about. Does the visa state "this visa is irrevocable, you will never have to do anything to be allowed to stay in the country, until the end of times, ever, we promise."? Maybe it does, and then I'm happy to be wrong. In politics and legislation, there is no "promises", no "indefinite". Laws are the reflection of what society wants at a certain point in time - at least in functioning democracies. For everything, not just immigration. I'm not saying it doesn't suck. I've had my fair share of dealing with immigration regulations and I know how awful it is, but it is foolish to think that a right to residency will never be questioned and subject to different rules. Only citizenship is definite.
rlpb 11y ago
> ...right...even though the government promised to never take it away I don't think this is true. She had Indefinite Leave to Remain. The Indefinite part of that just means that it didn't have an expiry date. Revokability has nothing to do with it. (OTOH, Wikipedia tells me that an ILR is revokable on specific grounds, so perhaps revocation is limited. But that list can clear be changed by statute, and there's no promise that it won't be)