In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

PS All of the above is from my head. The rest of me would like to break into Lunar House and scream at them that they are destroying people’s lives. But my head knows Home Office staff are only following government policy so I suppose that just leaves us with writing to our MPs.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

www.theguardian.com/.../caribbean-nations-demand-solution-to-illegal-immigrants-anomaly

In reply to Steve Bridger:

This is shameful.

Steve, I am sorry that I keep hammering away at this point but why is HR being portrayed as the bad guy? This is shooting the messenger and we should insist on the blame being put where it belongs.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

I completely agree. As Authorising Officer for my organisation, which employs around 120 people with a "restricted" right to work, I have had to dismiss more than once when we have no evidence ofor that right. I do not take this lightly but do everything possible to find some way of obtaining the evidence, including asking the Business help desk for advice (nearly always a waste of time as they simply quote the regulations which I am already aware of) or carrying out an ECS check. Unfortunately if the response comes back indicating no evidence or no right to work, ignoring that simply puts our licence in jeopardy and therefore the ongoing right to live and work of our sponsored workers. We cannot suspend,as that is still employment. We can reengage (but not reinstate) when the right to work is verified.

The biggest problem and most unfortunate scenario is where an individual like this case has lived here a long time, has no means of demonstrating right to work but was not subject to the check in previous years so was legally employed up to the point that he was legally required to demonstrate right to work and couldn't.

It's distasteful and makes me ashamed of my country.

In reply to Helen:

The biggest problem and most unfortunate scenario is where an individual like this case has lived here a long time, has no means of demonstrating right to work but was not subject to the check in previous years so was legally employed up to the point that he was legally required to demonstrate right to work and couldn't.

Thank you, Helen. I do think that this is the scenario that is so disturbing me. I am hopeful that the Govt will see that this is 'catching out' people never intended to be the 'targets' (excuse the messy choice of words)... but I won't hold my breath.

I would hope that Home Office staff are questioning certain decisions with their superiors, too... but they most likely have quotas and targets to fulfil. Grrr...

ps Your post was your 100th! Thank you, Helen :)

Did anyone see David Lammy's speech in the Commons yesterday? Glad that everyone's attention is now on this issue.

I'd be interested to monitor whether you all notice any shift in your dealings with the Home Office.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

Couldn't agree more Elizabeth about the Home Office. They just follow a list of prescribed policies with absolutely no common sense or logic.

We (the UK) allow convicted criminals who are not British citizens here to stay here after having spent time in prison because; "It is against the Human Right's Act to send them back", as they are entitled to 'have a family life', etc., etc.,

In reply to David Perry:

I watched an item about this on Newsnight yesterday evening. They showed a clip of Amber Rudd informing parliament that the Home Office had put policy ahead of people and apologising to the Windrush generation. However, the civil servants of the Home Office was following the instructions of their political masters.

It was the stated aim of this government under David Cameron, whose Home Secretary was Theresa May, to slash immigration. Here is an excerpt from the speech he made in 2011 where he set out government policy on immigration:

"What I have set out today is a sober, comprehensive and effective plan to cut immigration, and cut it substantially.

Sober because we come to this debate clear-headed about not only the benefits of immigration…

…but also its impact on our public services, communities and society.

Comprehensive because we are leaving no stone unturned, taking action across all routes of entry to our country.

And effective - because we are doing all this in a way that strengthens our economy and enhances the status of our universities.

This time last year, we said we would listen to people's concerns and get immigration under control.

Today I can confidently say that we are getting there.

If we take the steps set out today, and deal with all the different avenues of migration, legal and illegal, then levels of immigration can return to where they were in the 1980s and 90s, a time when immigration was not a front rank political issue.

And I believe that will mean net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade."

Here is the whole speech:

In reply to Steve Bridger:

Yes, I have been following with interest - I hope some common sense prevails but given this falls close on the heels of the debacle of threatening to deport EEA nationals who currently have full rights, due to over-enthusiastic adherence to rules, I remain cynical.

One of the problems is the massively under-resourced staff and the complexities of immigration rules, the many different circumstances people find themselves in and the rigidity of applying rules (and indeed understanding them). Temps are being taken on and given 4 days training before being let loose to make decisions that will affect people's entire lives. I am right now dealing with a refused asylum application where the individual, spouse and child must leave the country and can't even appeal the decision until they have left. And the individual has received 2 different letters in the same envelope, to 2 different addresses (previous and current) with contradictory advice advising of the need to attend, in person, in an entirely different town, on date and time "TBC"....

In reply to Helen:

:(

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

Following on from my post above, policy may have been set by the government, but in my contacts with the Home Office, the people I had dealings with appeared to have embraced the idea that their role was to keep people out, even if an employer was supporting an application from someone who would have been an asset to the business and to the country. There seemed to me to be a culture of "Don't care, won't care" and I am not surprised by Helen's experience.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

In my experience that's always been the case. Early in my HR career (many years ago now) I was applying for work permits for electrical engineers. It was on record there was a major shortage of people with this skill. The initial response from the HO was to ask why I wasn't employing someone from the UK (even though I'd submitted proof of the shortage).

It seems to me that part of the problem is that Civil Servants so rarely seem to live in the real world. Which also explains some of the curiosities that creep into employment legislation.

In reply to Anna:

It seems to me that part of the problem is that Civil Servants so rarely seem to live in the real world. Which also explains some of the curiosities that creep into employment legislation.

I think too often people hang their common sense with their coat every morning. They stop being empathetic and the 'rules' and 'culture' kick in. As Helen says, no wriggle room or discretion to apply to "the many different circumstances people find themselves in". Too much hassle to challenge... a mortgage to pay, etc. We do see this from time to time on this Community. 

I often say to colleagues that this Community is our most human service.

I genuinely feel for this man's plight - it is terrible - but at the same time, I feel like this is another occasion where HR is being made out to be the villain, or at least part of the problem. The HR team in this case could have been a little more proactive, but at the end of the day, they're constrained by the laws of the land (however ridiculous they may be), and it annoys me that this may be used to heap further criticism upon HR as a whole. Just my take, though.

In reply to Azizur:

The many incidents of "HR person fired for electing to follow conscience over the letter of the law" sadly don't get to make headlines.