Uk Immigration Changes In Queens Speech.

[7by7]

Full details have yet to be announced, but there are already some worrying aspects.

Queen's Speech: Migrants to face NHS restrictions

.....Migrants' access to the NHS would be restricted......

Does this include family migrants? We'll have to wait and see.

More worrying is the following from At-a-glance: Queen' Speech 2013 bill-by-bill

Immigration Bill

The right of appeal against immigration decisions will be restricted, and immigration officers will be given more powers.

So the UKBA will have more powers which could easily mean they make more mistakes; but the right to appeal against those mistakes will be restricted even further than the government has already done!

We will, of course, have to wait until the Bill is actually published before finding out the full details, and impact, of these announced changes.

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

On a positive note, goodbye Abu Qatada and we hope you enjoy a nice long holiday in Jordan.

[Kevin1908]

On the face of it what I have seen seems reasonable and for a change nothing aimed at the family and putting the problem where it really lays. Let's face it they could hardly make it more difficult for the family.

Shock horror, illegal immigrants wont be able to get a driving licence. To think that I and many other British men have been jumping through hoops and all the time an illegal imigrants can get a driving licence. Private land lords will have to check the immigration status of tenents. ok but if they then do nothing to enforce it like allowing employers to take on illigal immigrants then what is the point.

Making it easier to get rid of illegal immigrants. How easy does it need to be. They are here illegally, get rid of them.

For once they sem to be taking on the big issue and not tinkering at the edges.

[Jay Sata]

The main thrust of the new legislation is aimed at thwarting the merry-go-round that illegal and convicted immigrants have used to avoid deportation. The recent local elections illustrated the frustration the general population has over these matters hence the rise of UKIP.

Health tourism is another major cost to the UK taxpayer. It's quite easy for new migrants to purchase health insurance and visitors be compelled to obtain it as a condition of granting a visa.

I doubt this will extend to married partners however even if it did then health insurance will only be needed until the partner is granted UK citizenship. In the great scheme of things this will not be a major expenditure.

The Thai government are already looking at a proposal to insist on non Thai residents and visitors requiring mandatory health insurance.

[7by7]

Measures to make it easier to find and deport illegal immigrants; good.

Removing the right of NHS treatment for family migrants, especially if it is until they have ILR or citizenship which will take at least five years to obtain. No, I don't agree.

Even if the immigrant spouse/partner of a British citizen is not working, and many do as soon as they are able, their British spouse/partner usually is and has had to meet strict financial requirements in order for them to get the visa in the first place!

So I see nothing wrong with the current rule that anyone who enters the UK for a settled purpose can receive NHS care.

As for 'health tourists' the rules already state that visitors to the UK cannot receive NHS care, except initial care in an A&E department. This rule doesn't need changing, just enforcing more rigorously.

But, as I said in the OP, my biggest concern is the further restriction of the right of appeal.

[Jay Sata]

Measures to make it easier to find and deport illegal immigrants; good.

Removing the right of NHS treatment for family migrants, especially if it is until they have ILR or citizenship which will take at least five years to obtain. No, I don't agree.

Even if the immigrant spouse/partner of a British citizen is not working, and many do as soon as they are able, their British spouse/partner usually is and has had to meet strict financial requirements in order for them to get the visa in the first place!

So I see nothing wrong with the current rule that anyone who enters the UK for a settled purpose can receive NHS care.

As for 'health tourists' the rules already state that visitors to the UK cannot receive NHS care, except initial care in an A&E department. This rule doesn't need changing, just enforcing more rigorously.

But, as I said in the OP, my biggest concern is the further restriction of the right of appeal.

One leading newspaper is reporting that there were only two specific measures mentioned by Downing Street that will be in the new immigration bill.

They are putting the existing secondary legislation enshrined in an immigration rule on deporting foreign national prisoners into primary legislation and threatening 2 million private landlords with heavy fines if they let their property to illegal migrants.

The article goes on to say that the Downing Street briefing on the contents of the immigration bill is very sketchy on any actual detailed measures.

Instead, it talks of wanting to "regulate migrant access to the NHS, ensuring that temporary migrants make a contribution" without spelling out whether it means they will be required in future to have private health insurance or to post some kind of "NHS bond" before they come. Coalition talks on this remain deadlocked.

[7by7]

As I said, we still have to see the details and the devil will be in those details.

BTW; fair use means that when quoting a newspaper article etc., you should post a link to it!

[transam]

Measures to make it easier to find and deport illegal immigrants; good.

Removing the right of NHS treatment for family migrants, especially if it is until they have ILR or citizenship which will take at least five years to obtain. No, I don't agree.

Even if the immigrant spouse/partner of a British citizen is not working, and many do as soon as they are able, their British spouse/partner usually is and has had to meet strict financial requirements in order for them to get the visa in the first place!

So I see nothing wrong with the current rule that anyone who enters the UK for a settled purpose can receive NHS care.

As for 'health tourists' the rules already state that visitors to the UK cannot receive NHS care, except initial care in an A&E department. This rule doesn't need changing, just enforcing more rigorously.

But, as I said in the OP, my biggest concern is the further restriction of the right of appeal.

....................

[Kevin1908]

Listening to an interview on the radio this morning it was said that the Government would concentrate on allowing immigration to key workers only. You have to ask why has any immigrant, with the exception of family or asylum seekers been allowed to stay anyway.

Why would the UK be giving visas to anybody not in the category of key worker, family member or asylum seeker. oh and student visa I guess. Have I missed anything.

[Kevin1908]

The BBC news site says "Migrants' access to the NHS would be restricted and temporary visitors would
have to "make a contribution" to costs."

Didn't say that an immigrant would not get NHS treatment up to ILR but what does restricted mean?

[Jay Sata]

There are very few places in the world where health services are free.

In Italy medical staff are compelled by law to contact the police if they believe that the patient they are treating does not have a valid visa or work permit.

In the UK overseas visitors (whether lawfully in the UK or not) are eligible to register at doctors surgeries, even if they have been in the UK for only 24 hours. This has led to an increase in health tourism where holiday visa's are exploited to make use of the NHS.

With around 10 million extra people in the UK over the last decade not surprisingly the health service is creaking under the load.

In my part of England emergency ambulance are having to wait outside A and E for up to an hour.

As I suggested earlier the new moves are not aimed at those who have married someone from overseas and gone through proper legal procedures.

To quote the BBC

This bill is designed to make it easier to deport people who do not have the right to stay in the UK, and to prevent immigrants accessing services to which they are not entitled.

[bobrussell]

Overseas visitors cannot automatically register at a GP surgery. They are allowed to use any drop in centres still open or A+E but any major treatment is chargeable. EU citizens can register as temporary patients if the practice is willing to take them.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/while-in-uk/rightsandresponsibilities/healthcare/

From that page:

A few categories of visitor can receive treatment for conditions that occurred after their arrival in the UK. This includes residents of the European Economic Area, or of countries with which the UK has bilateral healthcare agreements. See our Rights and responsibilities page for European nationals. The Department of Health guidance also contains more details.

[Kevin1908]

There are very few places in the world where health services are free.

In Italy medical staff are compelled by law to contact the police if they believe that the patient they are treating does not have a valid visa or work permit.

In the UK overseas visitors (whether lawfully in the UK or not) are eligible to register at doctors surgeries, even if they have been in the UK for only 24 hours. This has led to an increase in health tourism where holiday visa's are exploited to make use of the NHS.

With around 10 million extra people in the UK over the last decade not surprisingly the health service is creaking under the load.

In my part of England emergency ambulance are having to wait outside A and E for up to an hour.

As I suggested earlier the new moves are not aimed at those who have married someone from overseas and gone through proper legal procedures.

To quote the BBC

This bill is designed to make it easier to deport people who do not have the right to stay in the UK, and to prevent immigrants accessing services to which they are not entitled.

Let's hope that the Governent carries this through to its concusion then. Very few employers are proscecuted for employing any illegal immigrant yet there are more than half a million of them. A fine at £10000 per employee would raise £5 billion.

[7by7]

With respect to some posters; my purpose in starting this topic was to discuss the proposals which may have a direct effect on members here and their families.

Whilst I am sure that many members here have views on illegal immigration, I doubt that many people seeking advice in this forum would fall into that category!

Neither are they likely to be health tourists attempting to access NHS services to which they are not entitled (good point, Bob; but unfortunately some people would rather believe what they read in papers like the Daily Mail than the actual truth!).

May I please ask posters to restrict comments to the points that will effect members here?

Namely restricting access to the NHS for immigrants and, more importantly, further limitations to appeal rights

[Kevin1908]

Since the Government haven't said what the restrictions to accessing the NHS are or what the limitations to appeals are there is nothing to discuss. I propose that if this post is limited to those 2 specitic issues then the thread should be closed until there is actually something to discuss rather than speculate. So far the only issues to discuss are the only ones that you are proposing to exclude. But then this will just be seen as a ignorant rant.

[7by7]

There are no details of any of the proposals yet; they are all currently just proposals in the Queen's speech. Proposals, I suspect, thrown together at the last moment as the local elections last week have Cameron running scared that the more right wing elements of his party will defect to UKIP.

I made my plea in the hope that this topic would be free of ignorant, anti immigrant rants from now on; but if that is not to be, then maybe it's better it is closed until more detailed proposals are published.

[theoldgit]

As this forum is about Visas and Migration, not illegal immigration or asylum seekers, please restrict comments to the OP in how the announcement in the Queen's Speech affects those categories.

[Jay Sata]

With respect to some posters; my purpose in starting this topic was to discuss the proposals which may have a direct effect on members here and their families.

Whilst I am sure that many members here have views on illegal immigration, I doubt that many people seeking advice in this forum would fall into that category!

Neither are they likely to be health tourists attempting to access NHS services to which they are not entitled (good point, Bob; but unfortunately some people would rather believe what they read in papers like the Daily Mail than the actual truth!).

May I please ask posters to restrict comments to the points that will effect members here?

Namely restricting access to the NHS for immigrants and, more importantly, further limitations to appeal rights

According to a leaflet I have here from my local doctor's practice

A person who is regarded as ordinarily resident in the UK is eligible for free treatment by a GP. A person is ‘ordinarily resident’ for this purpose if lawfully living in the UK for a settled purpose as part of the regular order of his or her life for the time being. Anyone coming to live in this country would qualify as ordinarily resident. Overseas visitors to the UK are not regarded as ordinarily resident if they do not meet this description

Therefore anyone on a spouse visa via a UK passport holder is entitled to free NHS treatment.

My understanding is the restriction on further appeal rights only applies to those already in the UK facing deportation. Appeals regarding visa refusals from outside the UK have already been terminated.

You say you are concerned regarding the further limitation on appeals 7 by 7. Its that for overseas appeals or those in the UK?

[Kevin1908]

Who has made an ignorant anti immigrant rant? All I have seen and commented on has been the proposals as made and commented appropriately.

Suely we are entitled for example to comment on the fact that there is a perfectly good law against employers who employ illegal immigrants but the law enforcers do nothing. If they do nothing about employers who employ illegal immigrants why does anybody think for three nano seconds that they will do anything about a private landlord that sticks two fingers up. Probably find that a lot of private land lords are themselves illegal immigrants.

[Kevin1908]

"Appeals regarding visa refusals from outside the UK have already been terminated."

Since when, I thought that was only tourist visas.

Have they teminated appelas against settlement visas already?

[7by7]

According to a leaflet I have here from my local doctor's practice

A person who is regarded as ordinarily resident in the UK is eligible for free treatment by a GP. A person is ‘ordinarily resident’ for this purpose if lawfully living in the UK for a settled purpose as part of the regular order of his or her life for the time being. Anyone coming to live in this country would qualify as ordinarily resident. Overseas visitors to the UK are not regarded as ordinarily resident if they do not meet this description

Therefore anyone on a spouse visa via a UK passport holder is entitled to free NHS treatment.

My understanding is the restriction on further appeal rights only applies to those already in the UK facing deportation. Appeals regarding visa refusals from outside the UK have already been terminated.

You say you are concerned regarding the further limitation on appeals 7 by 7. Its that for overseas appeals or those in the UK?

Yes, anyone who is ordinarily resident in the UK is currently entitled to the full range of NHS treatment, and this, of course, includes anyone here on a settlement visa.

But will this change, and if so how?

All I have been able to find out so far is what it says in the speech itself; "Migrants' access to the NHS would be restricted."

Which migrants? Restricted how? I don't know, yet; do you?

The right of appeal for family visit refusals has been removed with effect from 1st June (if memory serves, I haven't checked) but the right of appeal for settlement refusals remains; whether the refused application was one for LTE made overseas or one for LTR made in the UK.

Are the government proposing to remove this right, too? That is what worries me

[marstons]

There are no details of any of the proposals yet; they are all currently just proposals in the Queen's speech. Proposals, I suspect, thrown together at the last moment as the local elections last week have Cameron running scared that the more right wing elements of his party will defect to UKIP.

I made my plea in the hope that this topic would be free of ignorant, anti immigrant rants from now on; but if that is not to be, then maybe it's better it is closed until more detailed proposals are published.

this post is hardly in keeping with your comments on how it effects people here, this is getting into politics by claiming UKIP members are right wing. there is no such thing as free NHS care it all has to be paid for by somebody and this is a move in the right direction. Not racist but NHS is not a bottom less pit and new immigrants I think should be expected to pay for treatment until they have contributed to the NHS. I contributed for 32 years and now treatment has been withdrawn. Its the will of the people to have this kind of legislation, it is they after all who are picking up the bill, it does not make them racist or right wing.

[7by7]

.there is no such thing as free NHS care it all has to be paid for by somebody and this is a move in the right direction. Not racist but NHS is not a bottom less pit and new immigrants I think should be expected to pay for treatment until they have contributed to the NHS. I contributed for 32 years and now treatment has been withdrawn. Its the will of the people to have this kind of legislation, it is they after all who are picking up the bill, it does not make them racist or right wing.

So you are saying that only those who have contributed to the NHS via their taxes should be entitled to free treatment? (By 'free' I, of course, mean free at the point of delivery.)

If so, that means children would not be entitled to NHS treatment as they have not paid any taxes; which I'm sure you'd agree is ridiculous.

It is you has used the word 'racist' in this context, not I; and although labour lost some votes to UKIP in the local elections, UKIP does appeal more to the right than the left.

But as you rightly say, this is not the place to discuss politics.

[theoldgit]

When firm proposals are laid before Parliament there may be something to debate, until then it is largely speculation.

Topic closed.