by Andrew Sparrow on (#76YM8)
Cather Atkinson hinted that the Home Office may threaten to stop issuing visas to Pakistan unless it agrees to accept Shabir AhmedWe have comments open at the moment but we won't be allowing comments on the Ann Widdecombe murder, in line with our usual policy of not allowing comments on cases where legal proceedings are active. Please respect this and avoid commenting on this topic. If the moderators judge that this is being ignored, exposing us to a contempt risk, comments will be turned off.Last week it was reported that almost 80 Labour MPs have written to Andy Burnham urging him to drop the Shabana Mahmood plans requiring migrants, including those already in the UK, to wait 10 years or more to claim indefinite leave to remain (ILR), instead of five years, which is the norm now.At present, those with ILR can also access welfare including housing support, universal credit, disability payments, council tax reduction, tax credits and state pension credits.Under the proposed changes, migrants who gain leave to remain would have to wait further before they could access such benefits, according to two government sources familiar with the plans. The waiting time would also apply to refugees.First & foremost this would remove the main principled objection to the changes - retrospectively changing rules to (at best) keep people who came here legally with 5 year path to settlement in insecure visa status for up to 15 years - and for many effective deportation/remigration. (2/4)Changing rules/time limits on benefit access ex post is *not* the same thing - we do it all the time (eg my pension age!).That doesn't mean it's a great idea - it will increase poverty, be administratively complex, and various exemptions/workarounds will be needed.But politically one key advantage.As HO source implies, drives wedge between those who are (or claim to be) worried about benefit access & those who want remigration", whose primary motivation is racism and ethnonationalism. Continue reading...