起诉英国政府计划及声明
在正常情况下,流程大致如下: 1️收集并筛选会员的 witness statement 2️确定代表性案件(test case / small group cases) 3️提交 HRA claim 并完成立案送达 4️政府回应(Defence / 尝试 strike-out) 5️法官进行案件管理(CMC) 6️进入实体比例性审理 7️判决 / 和解 / 政策适用层面的调整
我现在所在的位置是 英国的最高司法机构 英国高等法院HIGH COURT门口。 我们刚才已经正式向英国高等法院递交了 针对英国政府的最新移民政策的诉讼 虽然仍然在咨询期,没有最终的政策确认 但是政府的这种行为 已经违反了多项欧盟人权法律框架下的条款 我们有信心,挑战政府的错误行为 这不是情绪化的表达, 也不是对抗性的姿态。 这是一次非常理性、非常克制、 基于英国法律体系,欧洲法律体系本身的挑战。 我们挑战的不是: “政府能不能改政策?” 我们挑战的是: 当规则改变时, 政府是否可以把制度变化的全部成本 , 转嫁给那些已经守规则、 已经付出真实经济代价的人? 欧洲人权法律下的A1P1 保护的不是幻想, 而是已经发生的投入。 签证费 医疗附加费。 律师费。 时间成本。 职业选择。家庭安排。 当一个制度长期稳定地运行, 当普通人基于这个制度作出人生决策 , 这种信赖本身, 就具有法律意义。 我们今天站在这里, 不是为了对抗谁, 而是为了告诉法院: 这群人真实存在, 这群人的代价真实存在。 身边很多亲人,朋友都担心我 作为一个上了岸的人 为什么要去管那些在船上的 很多身边的朋友 会担心: 会不会有风险? 会不会影响未来? 会不会被贴标签? 我要非常坦诚地说: 任何诉讼都有风险。 时间成本。 经济成本。 心理压力。 甚至败诉风险。 我们不否认风险。 但我们也必须承认一个现实: 如果没有人站出来, 制度永远只会听见沉默。 我们选择用法律语言表达, 而不是情绪语言。 我们选择在法庭里陈述, 而不是在社交媒体里抱怨。 这件事的意义,不只是个案。 如果我们成功, 它会带来三层价值: 第一, 对参与者本身—— 争取个案层面的公平处理。 第二, 对同类人群—— 限制规则的适用方式, 让“无过渡、无补偿”的做法受到审查。 第三, 对未来政策—— 建立一个清晰的信号: 制度可以改变, 但改变必须承担法律上的比例性责任。 这就是法治社会的运作方式。 不是情绪对抗, 而是理性制衡。 我想对中国群体说一句话: 目前还没有上岸的华人兄弟姐妹们 有至少10万人受到影响 我们在英国生活、工作、纳税。 我们守规则。 我们尊重制度。 但是,我们华人真的太老实了 太遵守规则了 以至于到了一种逆来顺受的程度 不敢反抗 不敢发声 我想说的是 我仍然对英国的司法制度有着无比强大的信仰 这个国家,虽然不是我的出生地 但是这个国家的法治精神,法制基础 一定会保障我们的正常法律权益 我们需要做的是 坚定信仰,勇敢的站出来,勇敢的发出自己的声音 站出来,不等于对抗。 站出来,是参与。 站出来,是维护我们的正常合法权益 站出来,不仅仅是为了我们自己这一代 站出来,更多的是为了我们的下一代华人孩子们 如果我们软弱,下一代要想强大 必然要面临和我们今天一样的无比困难 我们今天站出来 就是为了让我们的后代看到 华人,也有能力站出来 勇敢的发出自己的声音,维护自己的权益 最后,要感谢那些在这次行动中 给予我诸多信任,诸多支持,鼓励的 兄弟姐妹们 让我们一起,为了自己,为了下一代 团结起来,无论结果是什么 勇敢的一起走下去! 无论你是否已经上岸,是否受到新政策的影响 我恳求大家,请不要沉默! 在评论区留下你的声音, 让我们知道,我们不是孤单的。
Right now, I am standing in front of the High Court of Justice in the United Kingdom — the highest judicial authority in this country. Just moments ago, we formally submitted a legal claim to the High Court challenging the UK Government’s latest immigration policy. Yes, the policy is still in consultation. Yes, it has not yet been fully confirmed. But the direction and effect of this change already raise serious concerns under the European human rights legal framework. We believe that the way this policy is being introduced may violate fundamental principles protected under European human rights law. And we have confidence in challenging what we believe to be a wrongful approach. This is not an emotional reaction. This is not an act of confrontation. This is a rational, measured legal challenge — based on the UK legal system and the broader European legal framework itself. We are not asking: “Can the government change policy?” Of course it can. What we are asking is something more precise: When rules change, can the government shift the entire cost of that change onto people who have already followed the rules and already made real, irreversible financial commitments? Under European human rights law, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 — A1P1 — protects not dreams, but real investments already made. Visa fees. Immigration Health Surcharge payments. Legal fees. Years of time. Career decisions. Family planning. When a system runs for years in a stable way, and ordinary people build their lives based on that system, that reliance has legal meaning. We are standing here today not to fight anyone — but to tell the court: These people are real. Their sacrifices are real. Many friends and family members have asked me: “You’ve already secured your own position. Why get involved? Why speak for those still on the journey?” And many people are worried: Is there risk? Will this affect the future? Will we be labelled? Let me be completely honest: Every lawsuit carries risk. Time cost. Financial cost. Emotional pressure. Even the risk of losing. We do not deny that. But we must also face another reality: If no one stands up, the system only hears silence. We choose to speak in the language of law — not in the language of anger. We choose to speak in court — not simply complain online. This case is not only about individual outcomes. If we succeed, it creates three layers of value: First, for the individuals involved — fair treatment in their own cases. Second, for others in similar situations — a legal limit on how the rules can be applied, especially where there is no transition or compensation. Third, for future policy — a clear signal: Rules can change. But change must respect proportionality and legal fairness. That is how a society governed by law works. Not emotional confrontation — but rational checks and balances. To the Chinese community in the UK — especially those who are still waiting, still affected: There are at least tens of thousands of people impacted. We live here. We work here. We pay taxes. We follow the rules. We respect the system. Sometimes, we are so law-abiding, so patient, that we accept everything without speaking. But respecting the system does not mean remaining silent. I still have deep faith in the British judicial system. This country may not be where I was born, but its rule of law is something I truly believe in. The legal system exists to protect lawful rights. Standing up is not confrontation. Standing up is participation. Standing up is protecting our legitimate rights. And standing up is not only for ourselves. It is for the next generation — for our children growing up here. If we remain silent today, our children may face the same uncertainty tomorrow. By standing here today, we want them to see that Chinese people are capable of speaking up, of using the law, of protecting our rights with dignity. Finally, I want to thank everyone who has trusted and supported this effort. No matter what the outcome is, we move forward together — for ourselves, and for the next generation. Whether you are directly affected or not, whether you have already secured your status or are still waiting, I ask you one thing: Please do not stay silent. Leave your voice in the comments. Let us know we are not alone.
— 我们必须团结发声,拒绝让历史倒退
今天的心情,让我想起 2020 年 3 月 16 日,金毛狮王约翰逊宣布伦敦封城,造成全体性恐慌的时候一样。
几乎一夜之间,英国华人社区的人们,和远在中国的亲人们,瞬间陷入了深度的、焦虑的状态。
还是用我老爸说过的那句话,就像我在 2020 年写下的第一篇抗击疫情日记一样:(点击阅读)
作为生存在海外的华人,牢记的第一信条——
“没事不找事,有事不怕事!”
这是面对这次政策危机最有效的方法。
先说事实:
英国政府正计划推出一项名为《通往更公平永居的道路》的新政策。
然而,这个口号听起来“公平”,内容却极其不公平。
政府打算将原本在英国工作签证居住 5 年即可申请永居(绿卡)的制度,
直接改为 10 年——
而且极有可能适用于现在已经在英、已经按 5 年路径规划人生的人群。
同时,那些在英国辛苦学习、工作满 10 年就能申请绿卡的同胞们,
同样面临着政策一刀切、被迫改变计划的重大危机。
还有那些已经根据欧盟人权法获得英国人权签证的同胞们,
将面临更严酷的新政策:
从 5 年,直接延长到 20 年!
这个新政策意味着:
数以十万计来自中国、印度及其他国家的家庭,被迫延长人生规划 5 年甚至 15 年;
很多人因为英国原本承诺“5 年全家可申请永居”而卖房、停业、辞职、迁徙,如今被一句政策推回原点。
政府准备以“一刀切”的方式,用新制度追溯性伤害旧制度下进入英国的人。
这不仅违背公平,也可能违反英国长期坚持的法律原则。
作为一名长期研究英国移民法的律师,我必须明确指出:
英国宪法惯例与司法判例长期强调:
不利于申请人的新政策不得追溯适用。
政府不得随意推翻申请人基于既定政策做出的合理预期。
为什么我们必须发声?
因为沉默,会让政策悄然落地。
因为移民群体的权益,从来不是政府主动保护的对象。
因为如果我们不说,没有人会替我们说。
过去一年,媒体与部分政治人物不断渲染“移民过多”的叙事,忽略了事实:
NHS 的医生护士、
大学的科研人员、
税收贡献稳定的技术工作者、
创造就业的小企业主、
支撑英国科技、金融、贸易的普通移民——
我们不是数字,也不是选票工具;
我们是支撑这个国家正常运转的力量。
我们要求的不多:
只是延续原有规则。
我们并不反对政府为未来申请人设计新制度;
我们反对的是:
把新规则强行套在已经按旧制度规划人生的人身上。
这违背了英国自身的法治传统。
我将发起组织:如果政策“一刀切”,我们将毫不犹豫地启动司法复核(Judicial Review)。
为了让抗争有组织、有力量、能持续推进,
我将正式牵头成立一个跨社区的法律行动组织:
移民公平法律行动组
Migrant Fairness Legal Action Group
这是我们共同的名字,也是我们的盾牌。
若政府坚持追溯适用,我将以此组织为主体:
✔ 发出正式抗议信(Pre-action Protocol Letter)
✔ 组织证据收集
✔ 委托大律师团队撰写法律意见书
✔ 必要时提起司法复核(Judicial Review)
我们不是对抗英国,
我们是在捍卫英国一直引以为傲的法律精神、
法治原则和制度的稳定性。
我呼吁所有在英华人、印度裔及其他移民群体——团结起来。
无论你是:
走 5 年路径的,
新来的留学生,
还是已经拿到永居或入籍的朋友——
都应该关心这件事。
今天能把 5 年改成 10 年,
明天就能变成 15 年,
后天甚至能把家属排除在永居路径之外。
这不只是政策问题,这是原则问题。
我下一步怎么做?
联合向政府递交反馈
联系议员与政策委员会
举办公开会议
为司法复核准备证据材料
希望大家都能站出来。
我们来到英国,是因为相信这里的规则、稳定、公平与法治。
今天我们站出来,就是为了捍卫这些原则。
移民公平法律行动组 Migrant Fairness Legal Action Group
不是愤怒的符号,而是一个坚定、理性、合法、持续的力量。
我们不会激进,但我们会坚持;
我们不会退缩,但我们会守法;
我们不会被忽视,因为我们团结、专业、有力量。
“我不入地狱,谁入地狱?”
今天,我们愿意站出来承担这个责任!
— We Must Stand Together and Speak Out to Prevent History from Moving Backwards
The emotions I feel today take me back to March 16, 2020, when Boris Johnson announced the lockdown of London, triggering widespread panic.
Overnight, the Chinese community in the UK — and our families back in China — fell into deep anxiety and uncertainty.
I recall something my father often said — words I wrote in my first pandemic diary in 2020:
As Chinese people living overseas, our first rule is:
“Don’t create trouble — but never fear trouble when it comes.”
This remains the most effective attitude in facing the current policy crisis.
Let’s start with the facts:
The UK Government is proposing a new policy titled “The Path to Fairer Settlement.”
Yet behind this “fairness” slogan lies deep unfairness.
The proposal would extend the current 5-year settlement route for work visa holders
to 10 years —
and it may apply retroactively to those already in the UK who planned their lives around the existing 5-year rule.
At the same time, those who have worked and studied in the UK for 10 years — and expected to apply for settlement — now also face a sudden, sweeping change that may derail years of planning.
Even those on human rights routes previously protected under EU law may now face an even harsher rule:
an increase from 5 years to 20 years before qualifying for settlement.
This new policy means:
Hundreds of thousands of families from China, India, and elsewhere may be forced to extend their life plans by 5 to 15 years.
Many moved homes, closed businesses, resigned jobs, or uprooted families based on the UK’s promise of a “5-year route to settlement” — only to be pushed back to square one.
The government plans to apply new rules retroactively to those who entered under old rules.
This is not only unfair — it may breach long-standing UK legal principles.
As a lawyer who has studied UK immigration law for many years, I must make this clear:
UK constitutional practice and case law consistently hold that:
Adverse immigration rules must not be applied retroactively.
Governments cannot undermine the legitimate expectations created by existing policies.
Why must we speak up?
Because silence allows policies to pass quietly.
Because migrant rights are never protected unless we defend them.
Because if we don’t speak, no one will speak for us.
For the past year, some media and politicians have pushed the narrative of “too many migrants,” ignoring the truth:
NHS doctors and nurses,
university researchers,
skilled workers paying taxes,
small business owners creating jobs,
and ordinary migrants supporting the UK’s tech, finance and trade —
We are not numbers, not political tools.
We are the people who keep this country running.
Our demand is simple:
Honor the existing rules.
We do not oppose new policies for future applicants.
We oppose retroactively forcing new rules onto those who built their lives under the old system.
This contradicts the UK’s own legal traditions.
I will take the lead:
If the government enforces a blanket policy, we will initiate a Judicial Review without hesitation.
To ensure our actions are structured, strong, and sustained,
I will officially establish a cross-community legal coalition:
Migrant Fairness Legal Action Group
移民公平法律行动组
This will be our shared name — and our collective shield.
If the government insists on retroactivity, the group will:
✔ Issue a formal Pre-Action Protocol Letter
✔ Coordinate evidence collection
✔ Instruct barristers to draft legal opinions
✔ Launch a Judicial Review when required
We are not opposing the UK —
We are defending the very principles the UK prides itself on:
the rule of law, fairness, and institutional stability.
I call on Chinese, Indian and other migrant communities in the UK — let us unite.
Whether you are:
on the 5-year route,
a newcomer planning your future,
or already a settled or naturalised citizen —
this concerns all of us.
If the government can change 5 years to 10 today,
it can make it 15 tomorrow,
or exclude dependants from settlement routes altogether.
This is not just a policy matter — it is a matter of principle.
What will we do next?
Submit collective feedback to the government
Engage MPs and policy committees
Host public forums
Prepare evidence for judicial review
We came to the UK because we believed in its rules, stability, fairness and rule of law.
Today, we speak out to defend those very principles.
The Migrant Fairness Legal Action Group
is not a symbol of anger, but a firm, rational, lawful, and enduring force.
We will not be radical, but we will be resolute.
We will not retreat, but we will stay lawful.
We will not be ignored — because we are united, professional and strong.
“If I descend not into hell, who then shall endure its depths?”
Today, I choose to step forward and take that responsibility.
在正常情况下,流程大致如下: 1️收集并筛选会员的 witness statement 2️确定代表性案件(test case / small group cases) 3️提交 HRA claim 并完成立案送达 4️政府回应(Defence / 尝试 strike-out) 5️法官进行案件管理(CMC) 6️进入实体比例性审理 7️判决 / 和解 / 政策适用层面的调整
Court-ready first-round witness statement and evidence structure for a County Court claim alleging breach of Article 1 Protocol 1 (A1P1) in UK immigration policy changes.
对政府拟推出的《通往更公平永居的道路》政策进行了系统分析,指出该政策若 追溯适用于已在英国生活的群体,将造成深远且极具破坏性的后果。
第二次会议基本信息(会议纪要)2025年12月17日星期三
关于问卷调查的相关解释及参考回复,希望大家踊跃反馈给政府相关邮箱,文件底部有模版可以供大家参考,统一发送给邮箱:[email protected]
英国政府若将永居年限翻倍并追溯适用于现有移民,将极可能违反 HSMP 2008 与 2009 判例所确立的“不得不利追溯、必须尊重合法预期”的核心法律原则。
政府政策违法的标准案例:HSMP Forum Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 664 (Admin)》 这份判决的标志性意义
移民公平法律行动组(Migrant Fairness Legal Action Group)成立声明
请教一下,众筹的链接在哪里?
作为工程师,从来没请过一天病假,家人的未来充满了不确定性,这公平吗
规则就是规则,不能说改就改!必须双手支持!
这是21世纪的英国吗?!简直气愤!
理性发声合法维权是我们的权利。政府必须尊重行政法中的合理预期,建议大家记录好受影响的具体情况
从Tier 4转到现在,从未有过任何违规记录,没想到规则说变就变了
政府不能朝令夕改!必须坚决支持!
义无反顾地支持!这是原则问题,加油!
我无条件支持!法治社会不能这样搞!
作为辛辛苦苦打拼的移民,卖了国内的房子来英国,真的太难了
扫描二维码联系我们