youreavinalaff

I was referring to your comment " It seems they have got to the point where you are better of turning up at Dover in a dinghy than doing it legally." That is not accurate.

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

That rule already stands in UK.

I have outlined my suggestions above. Include property and investments. Checking would take minutes. I believe UKVI are on top of things right now. I've been hearing reports of waiting times meeting, or bettering, those published.

Exactly. So, a change in regulations would not change the way the applications are processed. Example, if home ownership was taken into consideration, we could upload a copy of our deeds. UKVI would check them. Just as they do with the other documents we upload. If they took share ownership into consideration, we would upload those documents. UKVI would then check those documents, just as they do the other documents we upload. Same process.

Changing the subject does not change the meaning of what you said.

You are not looking at the bigger picture.

No. It isn't easier to turn up in a dinghy. That comment undermines all the good points you make.

Each application is already looked at on an individual basis.

You disagree then you go on to give examples to contradict yourself. With a home bought and paid for, £18600 is more than enough for many. My wife and I live comfortably and, though we have the spending power to do so, dont spend more than a grand a month. I agree with you that the rigid, one size fits all, doesn't work.

I understand that part. However, money is not just sat there in a bank. That's was bad terminology on my part. Words ive always used to cover money saved. Sorry.

I'm semi retired. My wife works. I'll now need to go back to work full time, albeit only for 6 months, despite owning a property outright and having money in the bank. If the rules apply to those already in UK, which is still unconfirmed. The jump from £18600 to £37500 is too much in one go. There are going to be so many legitimate applications that now cannot go ahead. In many cases, £18600 as a start is sufficient to support 2 people.

I'm not disputing it's household income. You said it covers both incomes of a work8ng couple. I just pointed out it doesn't for the initial application.

Not for the initial settlement visa application.

There is no arguement. I know the rules. You think you do.

How do those things make the government think my wife is an issue? She lives with me. In a property we own. A property that I would live in if she was not here. Our daughter is 22 and working. She pays NHS surcharge at each visa stage AND pays income tax and NI. There have been over 1 million unemployed for as long as I can remember. That says something about a large proportion of the unemployed. Besides, there are over 1 million job vacancies currently.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

No.

Renewals for those already here or for those that aren't? As I've explained, it will be very difficult for the government to deport the spouse of a British national who already has settlement status.

I agree with your second paragraph. The report about what is retrospective and what isn't is vague. I think for the reason in your second paragraph. I'm sure it will be very difficult to deport a spouse of a British citizen.

It's vague. I'm not suggesting you are wrong. I just think the wording is unclear. Is it renewals for those not here yet? There are family rights rules that affect those already here. Time will tell.

There was a comment " not retrospective"

I've read it differently. It's retrospective to those who are yet to enter UK. There is also a quote from a top immigration lawyer suggesting the same. My wife will be eligible for ILR December 2024. I believe the income requirement will remain £18600. I belive the fact she is on a " 5 year route" will count.

The articles in the media on this clearly quote " British citizens or those with settled status looking to bring their family members to UK" There has also been a quote saying " not retrospective".

A very confusing article and nothing more than scaremongering from a newspaper not living up to its name. They even have a quote saying " not retrospective". There are laws protecting families that need to be taken into consideration.