MicroB

That's not what the decision said. I don't disagree with a requirement for a minimum income. I disagree with your understanding of a Dutch case from 2007, and I disagree with your belief that this is the end of the matter, and I disagree with your attempts to shut down debate through strawman argument. No doubt you have considered in detail the remarks of a British judge, Justice Blake, President of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, on a specific related matter, and understand that there is a range of opinion of judges, and its not cut and dry as you suppose and try to present. Of course, as you are aware, his judgment was struck down by Lord Justice Aikens with the following remarks The Home Secretary's reasoning for the new limit appears irrational (using an income level that is used to protect British jobs, not to provide a certain level of lifestyle), unjust (its not morally right to threaten people legally in the country with deportation because their partner can't get a payrise) and is unfair (unfair to pensioners for a start). The government will claim its about protecting British jobs and British society, but this detail reveals that they also don't want foreigners in the UK (by targeting wives) by imposing punitive income requirements. It doesn't affect me, as I am very financially comfortable, but I see the policy for what it is.

The recommendation for £18,600 was made in 2011 by MAC, based on an analysis of housing benefits and tax credits. It had not been increased, as you iply, from some lower number to £18,600 by 2017. There was in fact some judicial challenges to it. If you believe in principles, then the same principle used in 2012 should be used in 2023; the threshold for access to benefits. The government is not particularly concerned in British man and Thai wife living a nice life in the UK, they are only concerned if they are a burden to the State. If you earn more than £18,600, and are in good health and no children, you are not a burden to the State. The Home Secretary has literally set the new threshold based on the income of certain specific jobs. If your job isn't on this list, its unlikely you can bring a foreign wife home https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skilled-worker-visa-eligible-occupations/skilled-worker-visa-eligible-occupations-and-codes Unskilled occupations might include working in a pub, working on an assembly line, sailors, porters, janitors, caretakers, book keepers, taxi drivers, fork lift operators. Basically, the Home Secretary seems to think that if you are in one of these sort of jobs, unless you put your wife on the game, getting married will probably leave you destitute. How can anyone outside of Stockton even exist of £38,600?? His brain probably boggles. No its some fiugure he's asked a SPaD to come up with so he can close the door on those no good foreign wives, who will probably self deport themselves, plus those young postgrads employed by various London City finance firms on £28k a year. Easy wins. The higher the threshold the larger the pool of people who are more likely to be compliant and cheap to deal with.

Home Secretary May accepted the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee in 2012, which set the £18,600 threshold based on benefits limits https://www.gov.uk/government/news/radical-immigration-changes-to-reform-family-visas MAC suggested upto £25,700, to cover all costs of public services such as healthcare. The government went for the lower and the NHS surcharge; https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/the-minimum-income-requirement-for-non-eea-family-members-in-the-uk-2/ In 2023, the threshold for benefits has not increased to £38,700. In fact, its not changed at all. If they used inflation, it would have been about £25,000. https://www.gov.uk/working-tax-credit The government has literally moved the goalposts. The previous principle has been tossed out in favor of an income threshold that is quite a comfortable level. But this is a Home Secretary who doesn't have much concept of what ordinary people earn or live like, given his foul mouthed description of Stockton.

The salary requirements do not bear scrutiny when looking at the logic. The previous £18,600 was based on the threshold that most couples would face if applying for any income-related benefit. Completely logical if the applying couple is told that they must be able to support themselves. The threshold seems to have hardly changed. The Home Secretary (using all the powers of his Hospitality degree he earnt from the local tech college) is now using the median salary of a skilled professional as the threshold for being about to support one self. A lot of skilled professionals earn below this. Some have speculated on the savings threshold, which seems to be generating ludicrous sums. And any spouse on such a visa is already forbidden from accessing any benefits. Home Office modeling apparently indicates this will knock a few tens of thousands of family related visa application. It appears this will all be eliminate spousal visa applications, which would be counted as a success, given currently about 30,000 are awarded each year (90% approval rate). Write to your MP, as I will. Mine will basically do my bidding, as I take a very logical and factual approach with him, which has born fruit, such as getting me in contact with ministers, and actually raising questions on my behalf in the House. I'm lucky as he is one of these very Brexity type MPs, but old school tory, rather than a thug in a suit. He's lost my vote though, but its nothing personal, and he'll be ok as he has the family firm to fall back on. I suspect the HoL will kill this. But the government will invoke the Parliament Act, and manufacture some constitutional crisis, and force a confidence vote or a General Election based around a single issue. Based on his previous role, I don't think Cleverly has the appetite to fight this in the courts. He's more worried about keeping his seat.

If he has a frozen state pension, he has already contributed to British Society through payment of National Insurance.

The Dutch case your refer to concerned a Serbian national within the Roma community. The Judges reference to the Dutch minimum income (which I think was then about 9000 Euros, now it is 21,000 Euros) referred to the quite modest Dutch requirement. https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4667da4a2.pdf The response might have been different is the Dutch government had much higher income requirements. The Home Secretary said https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-12-04/debates/921A08A2-F615-48F2-8C56-423A29556F9F/LegalMigration The £38,700 requirement is based on the median salary for a skilled professional in the UK. ie. An unskilled worker will not be permitted to marry a non-UK citizen outside of the UK. In 2014, there were various court cases disputing the £18,600 threshold. These cases were lost because the government was judged to have acted lawfully. The appellants had argued that the threshold should have been £13,400, the national minimum income. The judges at the time noted " not up to the court to impose its own view on what the minimum income threshold should be, unless it was irrational, unjust or unfair." https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jul/11/appeal-court-18600-foreign-spouse-uk Its been noted that the £18,600 hasn't changed for a decade, so it is timely for it to be adjusted. Adjusted for inflation, according to the BoE, it should be £25,560. The original £18,600 came at the suggestion of the Migration Advisory Committee Notably, Theresa May opted for the lower amount, and it was based on a reasonable logic. Looking at benefits thresholds now, this does not appear to have changes; a couple with one working, less than £5000 in savings, own house, no children, are not entitled to benefits if their income is over £19,000. The proposed new threshold appears irrational (they have changed the criteria from being based on access to benefits to something based on qualifications), unjust (the Home Secretary appears to have no idea about inflation given he referenced the lower amount and the year, as if that justified his decision) and unfair (the was the minister who a few weeks ago called Stockton a "sh*t hole", it seems that to him , a salary of £36,800 is unfathomably low, and how can one survive on less than that). Notably, its now emerging that Downing Street had a more moderate package, and its Jenrick and the back benchers (Braverman, Patel) who pushed for this. Home Office models suggest it expects family visa applications to be reduced by "tens of thousands". https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/04/five-point-plan-to-cut-uk-immigration-raises-fears-of-more-nhs-staff-shortages Hom Office data on family visas https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-september-2022/why-do-people-come-to-the-uk-for-family-reasons So ~38,500 partner/dependant visas. It looks like the Home Office is expecting this result in the virtual elimination of spousal visa applications, if "tens of thousands" are knocked off this. Moreover, the government is unclear if the new threshold will extend to renewals. It will likely lead to deportations of people who cannot meet the combined income threshold, because apparently they knew all along they needed to double their income in 2.5 years https://www.ft.com/content/44667d25-13ab-4d20-bc67-b5ac414c1dc2 Confused response from a department who can't get their story straight. These aren't numbers carefully worked out, and determined to be equitable and fair. But numbers on the back of the proverbial f*g packet by a SpAD to get a model to fit backbencher demands. This might well end up in court and a government told to properly justify their numbers besides "2012 was a while ago, innit". Some sample salaries of common occupations Train Guard; £28k Finance Manager in Harrow; £30k Plumber: £35k Events Coordinator: £30k Water hygiene Tech (Legionella control): £25k Service Manager, Social Care: £30k Marketing Executive £30k HR Manager: £36k School Admissions Officer: £22,000 Production Engineer, electronics upto £32k Land and Highway Drainage Inspector: £29k Project Support Officer, House of Commons: £32k A lot of people in regular jobs might have to pu on hold for a few years any hope of a family in the UK, in case they are deported for choosing to not take a baby to day care. ,

For the moment. Does exemption extend to nursing agencies? ie a lot of people working in hospitals are contractors.

Also around 100,000 jobs are seasonal. Seasonal jobs have always been around and since at least the 1940s, have been mainly by foreigners. Poles weere the biggest group of seasonal workers in the 40s and 50s. They were mainly agricultural students from behind the Iron Curtain, and working on farms was considered valuable experience. Crops need to be picked or they rot. Hence Indonesians are being recruited now to go fruit picking for a few weeks in Scotland. Not many will want 6 weeks of hard hard work living in an old caravan. This is also why Thai people found themselves under attack in Israel; they are employed as seasonal farm workers, because there aren't enough Israelis who can go pick oranges etc for a few weeks. I don't think the politicians proposing the policies actually believe it themselves, given their own backgrounds. Its literally a policy generated to appeal to voters, to create clear water from Labour. A policy can be cruel but effective. But also a policy can be cruel and ineffective.

My wife discovered there is a limit to how many times you can change your name. When she first married a Thai man, he didn't like her first name, and changed it to something he liked. Then they divorced (he; adultery). She went to a monk and picked out a name to change her luck and reverted to this and her maiden name for her ID. She then traveled to Korea on her passport, with her married name, and didn't get far. She went to update her passport (in reality, getting a new passport, you cannot update a biometric passport). Then she had problems. Changing her married first name and surname to the name on her ID card was a name change that wasn't allowed. So she reverted to her previous first married name and maiden name on her ID card. Then we married, and she updated her ID card. Then was able to get a passport that matched. She doesn't have a birth certificate, so I am not sure what will happen if it came to that. I told her not to throw away her old passport. We might need that. I still call her by her Monk's name though.

Some good points. The MIG for over 25s is about £8000. Apparently its judged someone can live on that. So where does the £36k number come from. There is a conflation. Increased salary requirements are used to essentially protect certain job classes; effectively any job requiring a first degree or below is protected. Its nothing to do with trying to protect immigrants from the travails of low paid work. Low paid work will still exist, its just that it won't be done by immigrants. Is that really a vote winner; some getting the chance to clean toilets or empty bins? But the logic is flawed when extending that to the income requirements of sponsors, because thats supposed to be about protecting people from poverty through the hand of the State. Not very conservative really which is about personal responsibility, initiative etc. Which is why its muddled; its appealing to Red Wall voters who are used to the State telling them what to do and how to live.

Depends how old you are. I'm not old. Labour came back after wrecking by Militant Tendancy, and survived the Magic grandpa. I disagree that Parliamentary party are only "thick extremists". Most MPs are very capable individuals, not "thick", and history shows one does not have to be "thick" to be an extremist. A change to Party Leadership rules will sort things out (currently its the wrong way around, with the membership having the final say on the candidates. Shortlisting should be by the membership, back room deals by the Westminster membership). I'm not seeing a 3xGE election winner in Starmer; he doesn't have the charisma of Tony Blair. Tories will be back in by 2035. I'll still be of working age then. But whatever, Labour won't be reversing the policies announced yesterday. The policies might not get through a Parliamentary vote. Not sure if the government will try and make that a confidence vote.

Income of sponsor (spouse in the UK). The government says its increased the limit to ensure that people can support themselves. While at the same time increasing the costs. 30,000 spousal applications generates about £60 million in Home Office fees. The Home Office has spent about £140m in payments to Rwanda, where it intends to transfer refugee applicants (all of them). When the scheme is up ang going, its estimated that the cost to the taxpayer is £170,000 per refugee, and an incalculable cost to Britain's reputation. About 80,000 asylum applications per year. This might decide for some spouses that some other government is deserving of their tax money than the UK and increase emigration rates.

As a member of that "Nasty Party", I hope its an opportunity for the Centre to recapture it. Ironically, policies like this are designed to appeal to the "Red Wall"; people who vote labour.

Define "UK indigenous folks". Born in the UK, or do you need to go back a few generations? IHS adds £1.7 billion a year to the NHS. If the policy is a complete success, then that money is taken out of the NHS. Dentist shortages are complex. Dentists are generally self employed businessmen. They can choose to take NHS patients or not. They don't work for the NHS. The UK Dental bodies, essentially professional Unions, blocked foreign dentists by increasing language requirements, creating a shortage of dentists, because, not enough people want to become dentists. Blame them for creating a shortage. Of course supply and demand means if there is a shortage, well, they can increase their fees. There is a contradiction of you alleging there is this huge body of illegal immigrants living under the wire, who need to be "found", but are milking the benefits system. Actually, they are probably not. They are part of the black economy, pay no tax, receive nothing in return. Their employers, likely British, are paying no tax, in illicit businesses. Burden on the NHS. The NHS sees about 500 million patients a year; thats the number of encounters. There are many many people who have multiple contacts with the NHS, mostly elderly, like my mother who has had 17 A&E admissions in 9 months. That translates into about 17 million episodes. About 25% of the population need to use the NHS. A lot of people can go for years without being ill. These aren't reforms just because the current government calls it that. These are policies designed to appeal to voters. I doubt they will achieve what you think they will achieve. People living rough on the streets and eating from food banks is nothing to do with Thai wives, though some might be doing that because of what you call reforms.

The fee is waived/refunded if the person gets a job in the NHS. If the person gets another type job and pays National Insurance like everyone else, its not. But note, that exemption was only introduced during the COVID-19 Pandemic. I expect it to be rescinded. Coincidently, the average cost of private health insurance in the UK is £1,032 (some other estimates are a bit higher, a bit lower). Ministers argue that the immigration health surcharge (IHS) is a good deal for temporary immigrants when compared to private healthcare insurance. Arguably, Partners are not intending to be temporary migrants, but have to wait 10 years for their permanent status (ILR) to be confirmed. Does the government intend to refund permanent immigrants the money they had to pay because the government artificially designated them as temporary? Or is it a Conservative government that no longer believes in the "sanctity of marriage"? The latest available UK government statatistics indicate about 30,000 partner visas are granted each year. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-september-2022/summary-of-latest-statistics The NHS surcharge fee would raise about £30m per year. A net contribution of 0.02% to the NHS budget. A few Thai wives will not make a jot of difference to your ability to get a GP appointment. The government says overall the IHS contributes £1.7 billion a year to the NHS. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7274/ But that is a pretty perverse way of looking at it. Visa fees and the IHS are increased not to reflect the true cost of processing a visa application (£2k to look at a form, where 86% of applications are granted. I work in jnfectious disease. If I had a test that was giving me 86% of samples were positive, I would be arguing there is no need for a test. We operate on the principle that 60% of samples are negative) but to disincentivise visa applications, to reduce immigration. A minister boasting that the IHS raises £1.7 billion is actually arguing that his government's policies are intended to take £1.7 billion out of the NHS each year. Or maybe he believes the policies will never work, but they might be enough for him to keep his seat, because he can fool people into believing this will enable them to see a GP more quickly. The £2k fees are said to fund Border Force. I am a lifelong conservative and a party member. I will not be voting for this shower at the next election (not just because of this). My local MP is Tory, and a decent chap, but its nothing personal, and I know he always has the famly firm to fall back on. The question is do I transfer my vote to someone yellow or red, or not at all. The Reform party can go and spin.

Most who take out annual multi-trip travel insurance don't realise it only provides 30 days cover per country visit.

Which bank is giving 7% on a single £18.8k deposit? Regular Savers Accounts give this sort of rate, but the maximium deposit is capped at around £3000-4000 per year. And most of these accounts require you to open a current account with them. So it will get complicated if you have 4-5 different banks. Plus those current accounts will have monthly charges and deposit requirements. You can go to a Fixed Rate Account and earn 6% on money with 12 month access. I think these rates have peaked, and will go down. Easy access accounts are giving around 5%, but again, I think these will drop. When, who knows. A more realistic current rate now is about 5.5%, 44,000 earned on the mythical 800,000 deposit, but with quite restrictive access to that money. UK savings rates will likely fall to 2-3%, end of 2024 maybe, but more probably 2025 (depending on the forecasting bank). Where will Thai savings rates be then? The UK is currently somewhere near the peak, the Thai rate somewhere near the bottom (6 month deposit rate about 1%). Potentially in 24 months the differential will be very close.

I used this: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100040674731418 Never had to lift a finger. Just sat at bangkok noi office lobby, signing bits of paper as needed.

This might help some people facing financial difficulties https://www.jcwi.org.uk/what-to-do-if-you-cant-afford-to-apply-for-your-first-visa Doesn't help me though....

Ah, "New Conservatives" (an amalgm of the unfortunately named National Conservatives (Nat-Cs) and some other groups of Red Wallers).

Lets not forget said visa applicants are often also required, at their own expense, to undergo medical examination to ensure they are not a burden to the NHS that they are paying for. Or if working, probably paying twice over and subsidising treatment of others.

Health Service Charge is annual fee to access NHS; its paid in advance, and is refundable if the visa application is unsuccessful. So a 2.5 year visa required 2.5 years worth of charges in advance. Those migrants gaining employment in the NHS get the fee reimbursed. A week ago, the Home Secretary proposed raising the fee to £2000 per year. Its effectively a tax. You cannot opt out and decide to pay for private health insurance instead (private healthcare insurance is on average £1500 per year). Potentially, a Briton could attend 6th Form, get a NI credit, no NI credit for graduate and postgraduate study, then fall ill with a chronic condition. They would, rightfully, be able to access the NHS and potentially Continuing Healthcare services, completely free of charge, irrespective of NI "stamps". Similarly, a Briton could go to college, maybe even a non-UK college, get a nice job in the Middle East or Asia, and then, maybe at the end of a 40-50 year, possibly tax free, career, invest in property in the old country (and many do), and from the moment they step off the plane at Heathrow, have 100% access to the NHS for all of their healthcare needs (dependant on NICE and MHRA decisions). Potentially without spending a single penny of their earnings on National Insurance. Because access if based on where you live, not how rich/poor you are, or the colour of your passport. In the year to June 2022, 25,893 Partner visas were granted, which seems to be 30-35% down on the number granted in 2019. So the costs for a 2.5 year Partner visa is around £4300, paid up front, somehow. I wonder if they take Visa. Repeat, inflation/election adjusted 2.5 years later. ~£111 million contribution to the re-election fund each year. The £26m raised per year for the NHS equates to 0.014% of the annual budget. Looking to see how many 2 hours per week cleaning jobs there are in UK care homes etc.

It can't be done in a day now. The MFA apparently no longer does an express service. They need 3 working days, which makes things a bit tight to get done in the same period, considering the Embassy only takes appointments on Tuesdays and Thursdays. And the MFA shuts for the day at 3pm, and obviously closed at weekends. So, with a morning Tuesday appointment at the Embassy, getting the paperwork to the agency for translation and notorisation, then having it couriered to the MFA before 3pm, I might just about be able to get married the following Monday afternoon.

The affirmation of marriage application says you need to provide the name of the Amphur and date. I'm using an agency to do all the translation and legwork to the MFO, plus sort out a booking at the Amphur. So I don't have an actual date (beyond the date I'd want it to happen). Does it have to be the exact date?

For: https://www.book-consular-appointment.service.gov.uk/TimeSelection?location=53&service=35 1. How far in advance are new appointment dates released? 2. Are appointments actually only every available on Tuesdays and Thursdays? 3. Why does Firefox show currently zero slots for all dates, but Edge shows quite good availability Needed for attestation of marriage, but not sure whether to book my ticket now for September direct with the airline, that is fully rebookable, or take a chance with Kayak etc and book a more restricted ticket. There is about a £400 difference from the UK.