MicroB

35 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Asian grooming gangs have been a huge problem in parts of the UK   here's one link to assist you in removing your head from the sand, you can find the rest yourself,    Anyway lets hear what julie thinks about it all, or is she as blind and blinkered by wokeness as you?

Western sex gangs are a huge problem in SEA. Gary Glitter.

On 12/8/2023 at 9:37 PM, Bday Prang said:

so we should just let them all in then?  Would that make you happy?

Let whom in? Refugees? The answer would be yes and a qualified yes. Because its a sad world we live in that there are refugees at all.

Or do you mean criminal gangs? The answer would be No and Yes

Or do you mean Thai wives? Yes and yes.

Or do you mean unaccompanied children? Yes and Yes.

You need to be more precise when asking strawman questions that you are shrieking for a response to.

A headline from 1900. Note the language in reference to people fleeing pogroms.

You complain about changes in culture. These people mostly setting in places like Limehouse, Stamford Hill. The local culture changed as a result. One aspect is that East Enders now enjoy a Wally with their Fish and Chips. In truth, the British have had a mongrel culture since the day Julius Caesar rocked up. And I am proud of that.  It has made Britain distinctly different from Continental neighbours. The ability of the English language to absorb non-English words into our everyday parlance has meant it has become the lingua franca globally. We, thankfully, do not have an equivalent to the Académie Française. German agglutination has becoming a running joke (the German habit of adding new words by combining existing words into increasingly long words, some of which exceed 80 letters). 100% of British people have so-calling immigrant blood. Everyone.

And here is the same paper, 38 years later, further complaining about refugees

Obviously, that problem was dealt with not by sinking the boats, but by addressing the problem at source. Arguably, we should have dealt with the problem much earlier, but by not doing so, it cost us more.

On 12/8/2023 at 11:27 PM, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  The main objection is to illegal immigrants , those that ignore all the visa rules and just sail across from France in dinghies

  We all have visas , illegal immigrants are the same as overstayers and they are not liked either

The thrust of the legislation is not to reduce "illegal immigrants" (aren't we innocent until proven guilty?), but reduces legal immigration. The Home Office has produced modeling to demonstrate this. The number of small boats or whatever, will not be significantly affected. The government's own estimate is that a few hundred refugee claimants will be transported to Rwanda yearly (note, not "illegals"; these are people who have claimed refugee status, 79% of claimants are given refugee status). Their cases will be decided in Rwanda, according to Rwandan law, which is based on a German-Belgian code. The Home Office, at some expense to the public purse, will be establishing teams of British barristers in Rwanda, to provide some kind of advice. Unfortunately, they will be a waste, as they can only advise according the British Law. Once they have been granted refugee status, they remain in Rwanda. Those washing up in boats who choose not to claim refugee status will be deported according to the normal processes. Rwanda has a veto on any claimant removed from the UK to Rwanda; the UK has to issue a transfer request.

And there is more

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r#part-1--transfer-arrangments

Quote

16 Resettlement of vulnerable Refugees

16.1 The Participants will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.

So the deal includes the UK accepting refugees from Rwanda, the ones Rwanda cannot look after, without any ceiling. The UNHCR states currently Rwanda houses 127,000, mostly from the DRC, Burindi and a smaller number from Libya. 76% are women and kids, which I suspect is where you find the most vulnerable. There is already a contradiction. We are assured that refugees will be well treated in Rwanda. So how can they get better protection in the UK?

Now I don't expect the UK government will accept the next 3000 berth cruise liner chartered by the government of Rwanda crammed with the most vulnerable refugees. I expect if that happened, then that is the  end of the Treaty.

Now when a Home Secretary stands up in the House and assures the members that the agreement is rock solid legally, I think it helps that the Home Secretary, the former Youth Ambassador for London, has an education in Hospitality Management from the Ealing College of Higher Education, otherwise he is utterly dependant on assurances given to him by Home Office lawyers. Hopefully the Buck stops with him.

On 12/9/2023 at 2:00 PM, Bday Prang said:

I have stated my opinions and views, you are not obliged to agree, you are not even obliged to read them .   If I have caused any offence I really and genuinely could not care less.

Then follow your own advice when telling people to stop posting information that you don't like. Populate your Ignore list, so you won't get upset.

On 12/8/2023 at 9:37 PM, Bday Prang said:

so we should just let them all in then?  Would that make you happy?

Strawman.

18 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

 

 

 

So I feel for you guys, this is a scary time, where if you are considering taking your family back to the UK, it 'why didn't I do it sooner' I'm sure is in your head right now

Its an unusually uncertain time. The governing party has a large majority, which ought to mean they can control the agenda. There is the House of Lords which can shoot down legislation, but if that happens, the the Parliament Act is invoked, where the Lord's vote it nullified because of the supremacy of Parliament. What usually happens though is the Lords will moderate/waterdown contentious legislation, and often this leads to sensible improvements that a government will accept.

But this is a government with a large majority, who cannot count on the support of its own MPs. Events of the last few years show the Whips can't do anything. The threat to take away the whip is an empty thresat for someone who's decided they've had enough and won't be standing agai. Now the Conservatives are split between the One Nation tories (the largest caucus, around 100 MPs) who generally aren't happy with the 5 point plan, and risk of breaking international law (international law largely created by the UK), government loyalists, and a grouping headed by the New Conservatives, who think the legislation doesn't go far enough.

In yesrs gone by, the Conservative Leader would be chosen through a secret ballot process among the MPs. There would be backroom deals, secret agreements. Not very democratic. But it got a leader that most of the MPs would agree they could work with, and "get things done".

David Cameron decided to add the party membership (people like me) into the voting process. MPs would produce a shortlist of two, then the membership votes. Its the wrong way around. The membership can vote on some sort of shortlist, then the MPs vote.

I can imagine circumstances where this becomes a vote of confidence, and the tories voting themselves out, preferring to take a chance at the ballot box, perhaps palling up with the Reform Party. Electoral rules mean that its more likely Labour will win, with a sweeping majority.

The Conservative Party has become ideological, where the ideology overcotion policies merely to smes common sense. So two home secretaries and a Prime Minister, all of whom second generation Britons, pushing for quite contentious immigration policies, all to seemingly satisfy a section of the electorate who, ironically, doesn't want their sort in positions of power anyhow. The whole Brexit debate became like that; originally, it was based on logic (the cost of membership), then it became points of principle, with ministers supporting the act saying it will be great in 50 years time.

21 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Immigration to the UK is out of control and needs to be sorted out, Whether it is cheaper to live in the UK than certain parts of Europe is nothing to do with that.   

I have no confidence in the current UK government and even less in a labour government, but every attempt at controlling the numbers is opposed by the lefty liberal types.  Something has to give, and if they are unable to deport the illegals turning up everyday on the small boats then other easier targets will have to be found.  For example is there really any reason why a foreign "student" needs to bring a relative or two with them? Of course not

Government ministers are moved from job to job on a regular basis, todays  minister for education could easily be tomorrows transport minister. It is not necessary for the home secretary to have specific legal training, that is what the hoards of advisors are for.

The UK could learn a lot from Thailand when it comes to immigration, I doubt 17,000 illegal immigrants here have simply vanished

One of the papers outlined a real world example. A UK PhD student met a partner from Australia. The PhD student's stipend exceeded the £18,600 requirement. Their partner came to the UK on the partner visa and found a job paying £26,000 a year. All fine. However when the renewal comes up in January 2025, they will not be eligable for renwal. The rules disregard university stipends if there is less than 12 months left. So the only income considered will be her Australian partner's income. So her partner will have to return to Auastralia. After a PhD, one embarks on a postdoctoral career. Postdoc positions in the UK won't pay more than £36k for the first 3 years or so. Which is below the threshold for her partner to obtain another visa. With a PhD, the UK person is in high demand around the world, so will likely leave the UK, probably for Australia, where she is probably on a list of occupations in high demand, and will be welcomed. PhDs, unlike undergraduate degrees, are entirely funded  by the State, to the tune of £60,000 in stipends t the student, but at least that again in fees to the university. On top of that, many PhDs in the applied subjects, may attract additional UK industry funding. The net result is an enormous financial loss to the UK, in order to rid an economically inactive immigrant.

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

It's actually "Health Care" that is exempt.

The wording is "may be exempt". If you have medical qualifications, you will certainly be exempt, because you will likely have a tier 2 visa anyhow. You need to work for or be "engaged by" the following organisations:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-health-surcharge-applying-for-a-refund/immigration-health-surcharge-guidance-for-reimbursement-2020#annex

Nothing in the private healthcare sector is listed.

Notably, you are not eligable if "you will not be eligible if you were unemployed or had unpaid leave for more than 28 days during the last 6 months". Contractors, in general, are entitled to leave, but not paid leave".

An agency nurse might not get exemption is they don't have sufficient hours with the NHS, and end up with Spire, Nuffield etc. Which is ironic, because the private health sector in the UK has been effectively nationalised since COVID. The NHS contracts the private sector for beds and operating theatres, and then will do NHS referrals, and are billed at the NHS rate. The surgeons are salaried by both the NHS and private sector. The theatre nurses not.

44 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

The whole system is a mess, the removal of illegals  who are not allowed to work and live off state benefits may not solve the problem but it would not make matters any worse would it?  

One would not argue against removal of "illegals". Nothing in the recent policy announcements will significantly address that. The only impact will be the reduction in legal immigration.

Illegals, by definition, are not a drag on the state until they become discovered, then their status changes. Illegals get zero state benefits. A refugee might, but some consider that all refugees are illegal.

Actually some of the plans suggested might make things worse. It might make things worse if a place where you have your favourite country walk is suddenly a fenced camp with watchtowers (the former Home Secretary is calling for that). Or if parts of the country become new transit centres for the fleets of ex-Thai A380s to load up enroute for Africa. Or, as part of the deal, Britain now starts receiving A380s full of refugees from Rwanda, without a cap. Some suggestions are that each illegal removed will cost the UK taxpayer £1 million. So we are looking at costs of £80bn a year, although, these costs might decline, if, as you suppose, this becomes a deterrance to anyone on the other side of the world who is a regular Telegraph reader (how does someone like that even know of changes in UK policy).

7 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Unless the UK authorities banned him from leaving the country I doubt he would have any problems coming here. There are no criminal record checks for most visas or visa exempt entries.

 

A little remembered fact; passports, in the modern sense, were issued in WW1 to give permission to people to leave the country. Passports weren't given to people who might been considered vital to the war effort, eg scientists, engineers.

3 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Many/Most of the recent immigrants came from Ukraine and Hong Kong and they wouldn't have been Muslims 

Some might be. There is a significant minority of Muslims from the Crimea region. In addition, Hong Kong people aren't all Chinese. There are significant numbers of people who are Indian and Malay diaspore. It was an issue during the handover to China, as many became Stateless, since Chinese citizenship is based on ethnicity.

It shouldn't make any difference what one's faith is or is not.

2 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

"A Doctor" really???  That's a new one, I normally only meet ex special forces and merchant bankers, Who do you think you are kidding? What sort of doctor or any other professional refers to those with whom they disagree as "knuckle draggers"   

  

Yes, I qualified in 1995. Yeah, and for a while, during the GWOT, I was working with special forces, and now I work with merchant bankers.

I didn't call you a knuckle dragger. At the last GE, my vote went the same way as those Red Wall Knuckle Draggers. So you are not a professional, when you referred to "Lefty Liberal types".

The government is falling apart with the latest revelations about the hudden payments for Rwanda. They could have made more targetted efforts to address immigrants, such as putting a cap on student visas (can't do that, as they bring in money, in the form of overseas students fees, which effectively subsidises the UK R&D sector, important, as we now have less access to EU structural funds), or increasing the salary to beyond £40-50k (can't do that as many London-based financial firms are dependant on sponsorship of overseas IT professionals). So they looked at the soft targets, which usefully appeals to an element of their base. The risk is they might alienate their real core, the centre, and find themselves in the same place as the GOP.

Everyone wants to stop the boats. The policies announced will not affect that, except through generating more revenue to pay the black shirted border force. The way to do that is not to militarise the British coastline (you can put all the financial penalties, concentration camps etc in place, people will still try), ie close the beaches, traps out at sea. The sensible way, the true conservative way, is to address the source, and possibly practice some old fashioned imperialism. The Pound goes much further outside the UK, than in. Internal security merely increases the number of contractors on £1000 a day.

The reasons why refugees are suddenly (figuratively) washing up in the UK s not because suddenly Britain has become a much nicer place to live (its not). But suddenly, there are parts of the world which have become much much worse places to live. Some of that is climate driven; we've been warning the world for the last 40 years that changing climate in subsaharan Africa will drive migration northwards, for the same reason our ancestors left Africa in the first place. We've sent quarter of a billion pounds to Rwanda, with another £50m to come, with nothing to show for it. And the agreement allows Rwanda to send refugees to the UK, with no ceiling. You think those Red Wall voters know about that?

On top of that are man-made stresses, though some of those are related to climate change causing societal stress (weak governance etc). History is somewhat of a continuum of inter-related events. Many events now can be traced back to the 2008 crash. The 2008 crash causes can be pointed to events 20-30 years earlier etc.

4 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Immigration to the UK is out of control and needs to be sorted out, Whether it is cheaper to live in the UK than certain parts of Europe is nothing to do with that.   

I have no confidence in the current UK government and even less in a labour government, but every attempt at controlling the numbers is opposed by the lefty liberal types.  Something has to give, and if they are unable to deport the illegals turning up everyday on the small boats then other easier targets will have to be found.  For example is there really any reason why a foreign "student" needs to bring a relative or two with them? Of course not

Government ministers are moved from job to job on a regular basis, todays  minister for education could easily be tomorrows transport minister. It is not necessary for the home secretary to have specific legal training, that is what the hoards of advisors are for.

The UK could learn a lot from Thailand when it comes to immigration, I doubt 17,000 illegal immigrants here have simply vanished

Thailand is home to 1 million illegal immigrants, mostly Burmese. Or maybe its 500,000 or 5 million. They have no idea.

4 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

 Life is not fair , There are always  regulations to be complied with,   those who want to live here need to meet certain financial requirements and

I doubt very much there are many Thais out there on a similar forum crying on behalf of foreigners who don't meet the financial requirements to live here.   

In the scenario that I commented on, the guy in question was born in 1947, he is nearly 80 years old, and we can assume his "childhood sweetheart" is of a similar age, it would be astonishing if they both did not become an elderly burden on the state very soon. He may well have contributed to the Uk's crumbling health system but his childhood Pakistani sweetheart, like many wannabe immigrants, has not

 

 

 

Actually, under current rule, she will. Its called the NHS surcharge, £1000 a year

53% of the British population take out more from the system that give. Some of those I would charitably call feckless, and mostly not immigrants.

Here's another scenario to get your lips around

Harry considers himself a Brit, he has the tats to prove, He had his Ancestry.com DNA done, and it tells him he's 10% Gypsy, which makes him part Indian, but he ignores that as it must be a mistake, as he's pure English. He's quite clever. Did 6th Form and all. He then got a job on the rigs, and spends the next 40 years grafting in hell holes like Saudi, Nigeria, Iran, before they went bad. Earnt danger money in Iraq. Spent a bit of time in Thailand and other places, bird in each port. Even gets married to one. He hits 65, has a bit of a cough from smoking all those fags. An Arab doctor tells him he's got lung cancer. Spends a wedge on alternative therapies. Nothing works. So he goes back to Ingerland, and buys a caravan to live in. 2 weeks later he's admitted to the NHS. They will happily treat him as he has a UK address, and he has a fighting chance.

How much has he contributed to the NHS? 2 years NI credits from when he was in 6th Form. Some would call him a parasite

3 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

There is a good reason why they should keep the numbers low for partner Visas.  Many immigrants have scant disregard for birth control, 30,000 today can easily become 180,000 withinin 6 years and then those 180,000 can start the process again with the next generation. It really isn't rocket science,think  of it as compound interest if you have trouble understanding the huge problem

So 50 year old Thai ladies are getting pregnant??

No the reason why the law abiding groups are targeted is because they handily self deport, zero cost to the government, targets met for their knuckle dragging red wall voters. Immigration is basically a huge problem for racists.

UK birth rates have consistantly declined for 50 years. 2022 saw a 3% decline in live births compared to 2021. We are living longer, but that extended life is more years in poor health. Global rates are tumbling.

Its not a huge problem as you surmise, and I have a strong grasp of numbers as a Doctor.

On average, a woman gives birth now to 1-2 babies in a lifetime. 30,000 wives, assuming all are of child bearing  age,  will produce 47000 children, not the 180,000. You might know compound interest, but you are clueless about biology.

An extreme consequence of a declined birthrate, which you want, is Communist China. The 1-child policy is expected to result in the Chinese poulation going into permanent decline. That means that GDP will decline, as there are less workers, infrastructure will crumble as there are less workers etc. But that's the future you might want for the UK.

11 hours ago, superal said:

Not really . I used the "indigenous " word to highlight those who were born in the UK which separates them from economic immigrants who could have come from Europe , Asia  Africa etc . Skin colour is irrelevant .

Given your definition differs from the dictionary definition, how was anybody supposed to know that? If colour has nothng to do with your thinking, why did you even use the word?

Boris Johnson; not born in the UK, so is he an immigrant?

Foreign wives are only coming to the UK because of money? Apparently not, because before they were only coming to face living on 18k a year.

6 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

I don't really care what reasons were given by the home secretary, the fact of the matter is that the Uk is not a cheap place to live, 

Much cheaper that some other parts of Europe. Anyhow, is it any of your business whether the proverbial Abdul buys Lidl or Heinz baked beans. £25k is more than enough to live in the UK. According to the government's own reasoning, you only need £18,600 as a couple to live.

The Home Secretary's reasoning is important, because at some point he and his department will be really scrutinized in some expensive case as to how on earth can they justify their numbers. In reality, he is conflating wives with immigrant workers, and getting mixed up in his own rhetoric, and he's hardly brain of Britain given his distinct lack of legal training while in the job of being in charge of, essentially, the police.

I surmise that his department will respond along the lines of he needs a number that will reduce foreign wives by 95%, and we responded to the boss. The department has released their modeling data, and indicates that they expect this to reduce family visas by tens of thousands each year. There are only 30,000 partner visas granted a year.

11 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

It might seem fine to you but it might not seem fine to the Brit who owns his own home, has a reasonable pension of say £25k, his circumstances have changed and he finds himself on his own.

During has travels he meets and finds happiness with a foreign national, he wouldn’t be able to live with in his home, despite the fact they could live reasonably comfortable and be no burden on the State.

Indeed. The original principle wasn't about whether a couple could live comfortably on £18,600 but whether they would have any recourse to public funds.

The major objection from the anti-immigrant lobby is cost and resources; immigrants cost too much and demand too much. If immigrants are neither, whats the remaining objection? We're circling around an elephant in the room.

20 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

The figure of  £38,000 seems fine to me when bearing in mind the obscene cost of living in the UK.

Thats not the reasoning given by the Home Secretary.

9 hours ago, superal said:

Stalled  and amended I hope . Abandoned ? no but modified to eliminate discrimination against indigenous retirees or on  low incomes . About time the UK gov; started taking care of its own people first .

What's an "indigenous retiree". The dictionary would define indigenous peoples as the earliest known inhabitants of an area and their descendants. Which for the British Isles basically means Celts, because the Anglo-Saxons are basically descendants of invaders (the name is the hint).

But maybe you include descendants of Celts, Picts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, descendants of Spanish and Portuguese jews who form part of the oldest Jewish community in the UK, perhaps you include the Hugenots (French Protestants), Russian Jews and other people who settled in the UK. Will you include the descendants of the 200,000 Poles who settled in the UK during the 40s and 50s. Are you including Irish people who came to the UK after 1921? The Wind Rush generation. People from India and Pakistan who arrived in the 1950s, 60s, 70s. Does "indigenous" include only those who were British Citizens when born, or are you including those who were considered British Subjects when born?

Consider Abdul. He was born in 1947, in Lahore. He joined his father in 1957. His father, Imran, came a few year earlier. and got a job as a bus driver, because Britain was short of drivers post WW2. Abdul was born a British subject, and became a British citizen. He eventually married in the UK, maybe his parents had a hand in deciding who he should marry. They never had children. His wife passed away in 2020, after 50 years of marriage. Abdul pines for her and he doesn't want to die alone. His childhood sweetheart in Lahore is also a widow. They want to marry, and spend their remaining days together. He has a modest pension of £25,000; a combination of a full State Pension, and a small company pension from his days working at the factory. Its enough. He doesn't have many needs. His house is brought and paid for, and he doesn't drive. His wife to be has no assets to speak of. She can't come to the UK, and there is no prospect of her gaining employment here.

Is he an "indigenous retiree"? Or should he go back to Lahore?

9 hours ago, Jumbo1968 said:

75000 +currently claiming asylum, how are they going to select the 200 Rwanda are going to take at a cost of £140 million which has now been topped up by another £40 million the other day, expensive ‘digs’ It would be cheaper keeping them in the U.K. ,no way is sending people to Rwanda going to discourage people crossing the channel, very large odds you could be selected to be sent to Rwanda.

Maybe not from across the channel

https://order-order.com/2023/12/05/sunaks-rwanda-plan-small-print-includes-uk-accepting-rwandan-refugees/

6 hours ago, theblether said:

 

The Dutch issue was moot, the concept of a minimum income requirement was accepted unanimously. If there was no minimum income then ( at that time ) sixteen year old school kids could have married a foreign spouse and brought them to the country without any method to financially provide for them. 

 

That was absurd, and no sane person reading this thread believes that there should not be a minimum income. Neither do the courts. 

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

Quote

Individuals will have different views on what constitutes the minimum income requirements needed to accomplish the stated policy terms.......In my judgment, it is not the court’s job to impose its own view unless, objectively judged, the levels chosen are to be characterized as irrational, or inherently unjust or inherently unfair.

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.

6 hours ago, theblether said:

 

To clarify, at one time - not at that time, as by 2017  the £18,600 limit was in place

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.

5 hours ago, globalThailand said:

 

I fear great number of people will be on one salary as their partner looks after kids and miss the cut.  I'm somewhat surprised the 18600 didn't have any increases since it was introduced but this jump is astronomical!  Sad day for the UK

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

Quote

The income threshold of £18,600 is based on advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), and is calculated as the level at which a couple generally ceases to be able to access income-related benefits.

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.

8 hours ago, superal said:

Assumption is that to meet the new rules a UK returning retiree sponsor would have to show proof of pension / income / taxes paid etc . Therefore any non retired new applicants can only show a letter of a job offer and salary offered ? Would the applicant have to keep that job indefinitely to comply with the new rules ? Would the loss of employment or change of job to a lower salary mean deportation ? If a retiree died after only a short amount of time after returning to the UK , would that mean his lady would have to leave the UK ? 

So many ifs & buts and I can see complications arising and possibly fraud and fake applications . However the burden on the benefits system would be lightened as the applicant will be in receipt of reasonable wages . 

I can envisage amendments when the bill is debated in the house of commons / lords .

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.