MicroB

4 hours ago, Charlest1971 said:

Then come back to the UK, now and contribute to our society.
It sounds like you want your cake and eat it. And by the way, if you try & enter the UK, on a dinghy, very soon, you will be sent to Rwanda without the option to return. 

 

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

6 hours ago, theblether said:

 

You are wrong with your continual assertion that you believe it was ILLEGAL and against EHCR. The Supreme Court found the minimum income policy legal by a unanimous decision in 2017. So you can give that argument a rest. 

 

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.

 

Quote

In principle, the Court does not consider unreasonable a requirement that an alien having achieved a settled status in a Contracting State and who seeks family reunion there must demonstrate that he/she has sufficient independent and lasting income, not being welfare benefits, to provide for the basic costs of subsistence of his or her family members with whom reunion is sought. As to the question whether such a requirement was reasonable in the instant case, the Court considers that it has not been demonstrated that, between 1990 and 1998, Mr G. has in fact ever complied with the minimum income requirement or at least made any efforts to comply with this requirement whereas the applicant's claim that he is incapacitated for work has remained wholly unsubstantiated.

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

 

Quote

we will ensure that people bring only dependants whom they can support financially, by raising the minimum income for family visas to the same threshold as the minimum salary threshold for skilled workers, which is £38,700. The minimum income requirement is currently £18,600 and has not been increased since 2012.

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

 

Quote

The Migration Advisory Committee recommended that the minimum gross annual income for sponsoring a partner, without dependants, should be set at between £18,600 (the level at which in most cases a couple receive no income-related benefits) and £25,700 (the level at which the sponsor is a net contributor to the public finances).

 

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.

,

1 minute ago, theblether said:

 

The NHS is exempt. 

 

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

5 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

It won't be done either by a feckless, lazy,  entitled UK workforce.  These dumb asses in charge can't see that someone has to do the low paid stuff, its the way of the World.  If you want that low paid stuff done and your lazy ass locals will not do it, then bring someone else in who will. 

 

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.

20 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

It is very likely that this policy, if passed, will be challenged at the ECHR under the 'right to family life' provisions.

 

That will add further impetus to the Conservative's desire to take the UK out of the jurisdiction of the ECHR.  Just at Johnson sought to change Parliamentary rules when he effectively broke the law - the Conservative's view in general seems to be that when they come up against the law - change the law. The fact that the UK was one of the founding proponents of the ECHR seems to be lost on the Conservatives.

 

I have no intention of getting married again and even if I did, I would not take my wife to the UK. However, I will always defend the rights of those who wish to do so.  There will be cases where a UK national, married to a foreigner and living abroad, becomes ill with a long term, possibly life long illness and needs to return to the UK. How would that person be able to take his wife to the UK if he didn't meet the income requirements? Should he leave his wife (and carer) behind?

 

Many of the changes to visa regulations and increases in charges affecting those who wish to bring their wife to the UK are, I have no doubt, aimed at a particular group (nationality) who deliberately seek a wife from their country of heritage - often with no intention of continuing that marriage.  That wife, then seeks to bring her aging parents and other members of her family to the UK - placing further burdens on the UK's welfare system.

 

Discrimination laws would prevent any different treatment of that particular group so it seems we all have to pay for their behaviour. However, as I say, I fully expect these new proposals to be challenged. On the subject of discrimination, it could be said that by imposing a minimum income level, the UK government is discriminating between those who have and those who have not - again potentially illegal.

 

The fact that laws are put in place for a reason seems to go above their heads as they continue trying to dismantle democracy and remove laws that prevent them from implementing their policies. I used to be a Conservative voter but now I've seen their true colours - never again.

 

 

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.

 

1 minute ago, Fairynuff said:

That’s not going to happen in our time. The “centre”, those with a grain of integrity were thrown out by Johnson, all that’s left are basically thick extremists l

 

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.

30 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

Not as I read it because the person applying is a UK citizen.  There is already a  strict financial requirement in the visa process for the Sponsor,  that I believe is above the new number, but I could be in error. 

 

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.

36 minutes ago, Fairynuff said:

This is just the dying phase of the Nasty Party trying to appeal to their lowest base in the desperate hope they can hang on to power and continue stuffing their pockets.

 

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.

1 hour ago, superal said:

UK indigenous folks and pensioners should be exempt from the new rules . A married couple are expected to live on about 15K a year state pension and a single person about  10K. UK state pensions need to double at least . The reforms will reduce the net migration figures by as much as 50% and lessen the burden on the NHS , housing and benefits system . Also the UK Immigration should be upgrading their detection methods on finding illegal immigrants , many of whom are milking the benefits system on a large scale and are disguised as asylum seekers . UK crime rates on car theft and shop lifting have rocketed recently . Correlation with high immigration / crime ? Not to forget trying to get a doctor or dentist appointment or 10 hour waiting at the A& E . People living rough on the streets at a record level and 20% of people using food banks . 

No doubt there will be protest marches , against the immigration reforms , led by so called do gooders e.g. Stop the Oil campaigners . The UK has gone from bad to worse and needs these radical reforms to halt the slide .

 

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.

12 hours ago, theblether said:

I.think its a bit high. I don't have a problem.with the NHS fee increasing. It is truly ridiculous trying to get GP appointments these days. 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

On 10/16/2023 at 9:12 AM, BE88 said:

Another tragedy, but how can you go on holiday in Thailand, famous for its terrible insecurity roads without any insurance?

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

5 hours ago, anchadian said:

THB800,000 divide by say 44 baht to the pound = 18,180 pounds earning interest in a UK bank at say 7% = GBP1,272 (THB56,000) yearly compared to using an agent say 12,500 baht yearly, gives a saving of approx THB43,500 annually.

Now which one would you choose?

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).

11 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

 

The fact that those charged the NHS Surcharge, will  in all probability, also pay Income Tax and make National Insurance contributions in their own right, means nothing to the average member of the Great British Public.

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.

14 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

So it is Visitors and people who are going to UK to work, who will all contribute to the UK economy who will be paying for the NHS rises and NOT those who go to A&E or their Doctor with a cough & cold, or the 'illegal immigrants & asylum seekers' who get treatment for free without working. Pathetic.

What is this Health Service Charge and Student's Fee please?

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.

On 7/8/2023 at 11:19 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Sounds like bureaucracy gone mad. Luckily I didn't need that when I got mine ( not from UK embassy ) as the first place wouldn't do it because of some problem with paperwork.

 

IMO tell the agency to get a move on- I did all that in a day on my own. Perhaps it's got more difficult now, which would not surprise me.

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.

For those interested, anyone with a Thai passport with such a stamp in is blocked from applying for a new one until any blacklisting has expired.

23 hours ago, jimn said:

In this case I disagree with you. A questionable arrest and overstaying the visa in Malaysia with result in her being denied a UK visit visa. The UK will have no way of checking any Malaysian database even if it is kept up to date. She has nothing to lose by getting a new passport and not declaring the convictions, no one will know. By the way I am not naive about UK visa applications. I have successfully carried out 3 x 1 year applications, a 5 year and a 10 year visa for my Thai wife.

For a Partner Visa, I have £1500+ to lose (non-refundable). Immigration Rules Appendix FM S-EC.1.4.(c) make it clear:

 

Quote

 

S-EC.1.4. The exclusion of the applicant from the UK is conducive to the public good because they have:

1. (c) been convicted of an offence for which they have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of less than 12 months, unless a period of 5 years has passed since the end of the sentence.

 

Though common sense suggests there is a difference between a beak handing down 1 year versus 4 weeks because they didn't have the money to pay the fine. But anyhow, a good Malaysian friend (consultant Surgeon in the UK) who had a particularly nasty run in with the HMG (threatened with deportation because he asked permission to attend a wedding in KL. Cost him £5k in lawyer fees to stay in the UK, missing the wedding of course, due to the arbitrary nature of a nameless official), is looking into the Malaysian codes I have to confirm what was the actual offence. I suspect there is no leeway, hence the manual, but time is a probable solution.

 

Her current passport in in her previous married name, which being Thailand means she had a first name chosen by her ex-husband, because he didn't like her given name. Her ID card is in her maiden name and new given name. So she needs a new passport. She thought she would have to wait for her current one to expire before getting a new one, which isn't the case. She just has to apply for a new one and the current one is canceled.

 

 

 

On 4/23/2023 at 9:25 AM, sandyf said:

Almost certainly and personally I think little chance of success in current circumstances.

I would suggest getting married, wait a couple of years and the application would have a better chance of success.

I have now read S-EC.1.4(c), and well understand it now. Wait until December 11 2024, unless Appendix FM is revised. Hopefully PM Starmer by then. Not that I would normally vote for his party. Present HS has a screw loose and looks to low hanging fruit to get herself out of trouble.