It was Sky News that showed a dangerous escalation as per next year if the Conservatives do not change certain parts of their immigration plan. Even though this is now all over the news, the BBC reported this in Feb 2012, it is only that this administration will now be confronted with it. So could this government have made such a blunder?
It is the Guardian that produced the most disturbing quote (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/22/new-immigration-rules-cost-nhs-millions-nursing), stating “Employers have had since 2011 to prepare for the possibility their non-EEA workers may not meet the required salary threshold to remain in the UK permanently.”, as I see it, that quote boils down to “You have 4 years to get rid of them, or get them nationalised“, which is saying a bit much!
Yet, when I look at the immigration rules appendix i (final) i see the following at section 245HF
At (d)(ii)(1) it states:
(1) At or above the appropriate rate for the job, as stated in the Codes of Practice in Appendix J, or
After which we get the 35,000 pound issue, so when we look at appendix J (at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/420539/20150406_immigration_rules_appendix_j_final.pdf) we see the following: on page 18 and 19 we see category 2231 Nurses (the appendices are attached to the story).
So the question becomes, what were the papers making noise about? Sky News, the Guardian, Daily Mail, et al. Is it me, or are they just starting a needless panic?
Section I (at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/420536/20150406_immigration_rules_appendix_i_final.pdf) states: “Pay requirements which the Secretary of State intends to apply to applications for indefinite leave to remain from Tier 2 (General) and Tier 2 (Sportspersons) migrants made on or after 6 April 2016”
Then on page 2 we clearly see the issues reported.
Let’s go by the booklet:
- First (a) no unspent convictions (so no criminals, makes sense….yes?)
- Second (b) no general grounds for refusal and no illegal entrant (again, makes perfect sense)
- Third (c) have spent 5 years lawfully in the UK, which was always a requirement, and in any combination of the following:
As a tier one migrant, excluding the Post Study work, or the Graduate entrepreneur.
As a tier 2 migrant (general migrant); the bulk of all nurses will be a tier 2 migrant.
- Then this person also needs a letter from the sponsor (their boss) that they still require the applicant (basically that this person has a job, which as a nurse is pretty much a given).
- In addition to this that the applying migrant is paid at or above the Codes of Practice in Appendix J, which gets us to the other appendix (J) which clearly states that a nurse does not need to make 35,000 pounds.
So can anyone tell me why these papers were not read correctly by the writers of the stories (or their editors for that matter)?
The paper clearly indicates that this is the situation with all nurses for 2016. So why are these publications stirring panic amongst the nurses?
Perhaps the journalists are not British citizens and they failed provision 245HF (f), where it states: “The applicant must have sufficient knowledge of the English language”
OK, that was a mean statement to make, but in this day and age where doctors and nurses are nervous enough, adding silly levels of stress are just a little bit too silly for words in my slightly less humble opinion (just for today).
On the other hand, if there are new revisions and I was unaware of them (basically I had not found them at the GOV.UK site), I will be eating humble pie and upgrading this story as soon as I am aware of it.