Only Fools and Horses star reveals heartbreak as Thai wife banned from the UK

[Drago]

If he were an asylum seeker/refugee then he could apply for visas for his wife and children free of charge and without having to meet any of the requirements relating to finances and accommodation etc.

[wakeupplease]

He's a Brit so should like the rest of us comply with the law that was put there to protect the country from too much immigration, I had to, so he should also, sod him complaining as he was a former TV star, we are all equal here mate so shut up please and go and live elsewhere if you do not like it.

[Drago]

4 minutes ago, wakeupplease said:

He's a Brit so should like the rest of us comply with the law that was put there to protect the country from too much immigration, I had to, so he should also, sod him complaining as he was a former TV star, we are all equal here mate so shut up please and go and live elsewhere if you do not like it.

Yes he is British so is bound by the rules whilst they write different ones for the family members of asylum seekers and refugees.

[wakeupplease]

3 hours ago, Drago said:

Yes he is British so is bound by the rules whilst they write different ones for the family members of asylum seekers and refugees.

Same law applies to all who live in the UK, so abide by it or leave. thousand of Brits have had to go through this including Americans and many more so why is this guy any different to the rest of us. I can think of one on going case where a UK lady cannot get her American Husband in at the moment.

 

asylum seekers and refugees

 

Yes they can get in but a civilised country obeys the UN rules and regs, where as some countries just push them back into the sea or use them for slave labour and have no morals on this except keep out the foreigners.

[Drago]

35 minutes ago, wakeupplease said:

Same law applies to all who live in the UK

The same rules don't apply to family members of asylum seekers as do to family members of people born in the UK.

 

There is no requirement to show adequate maintenance and accommodation without recourse to public funds and refugee family members are exempt from the minimum income threshold of £18,600. A refugee can be in receipt of welfare benefits but still sponsor his or her family members to come to the UK.

 

There is also provision in the Immigration Rules for a refugee to sponsor the entry of children to whom the refuge is related but who are not his or her own children. For example, the children might be nieces or nephews or grandchildren. Again this is exempt from the minimum income threshold of £18,600. A refugee can be in receipt of welfare benefits but still sponsor his or her family members to come to the UK.

 

Where a family member of a person born in the UK needs to pay a ridiculously high visa fee (about £1500 for spouse visa at the moment) for a family member of a refugee it is free of charge. Where a family member of a person born in the UK has to pay an NHS surcharge (£600 for spouse visa application) the family member of a refugee does not have to pay anything.

 

Yes the law applies to all who live in the UK, but some people get preferential treatment and don't have to meet the same requirements as the indigenous population. Then people with their heads up their <deleted> are shocked when the local population has the audacity to think it not something to be celebrated.

 

And by the way any refugee who has reached the shores of the UK by any other way than on a plane has already passed through multiple safe countries and as such has no right seeking asylum in the UK and that IS the law, and as you say 'the same law applies to all'.

 

 

[nontabury]

8 hours ago, Drago said:

If he were an asylum seeker/refugee then he could apply for visas for his wife and children free of charge and without having to meet any of the requirements relating to finances and accommodation etc.

 

Very true.I also found this out fairly recently,while trawling through the requirements for my wife to apply for a settlement visa. Strangely the UK media do not mention this, I wonder why.

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, nontabury said:

 

Very true.I also found this out fairly recently,while trawling through the requirements for my wife to apply for a settlement visa. Strangely the UK media do not mention this, I wonder why.

 

Why would the media be reporting on a 66 year old story?

[nontabury]

17 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Why would the media be reporting on a 66 year old story?

 

Not sure what you mean. However to repeat myself this is the situation today in 2017. When none British citizens are given preferential treatment over British citizens.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

5 hours ago, Drago said:

The same rules don't apply to family members of asylum seekers as do to family members of people born in the UK.

 

There is no requirement to show adequate maintenance and accommodation without recourse to public funds and refugee family members are exempt from the minimum income threshold of £18,600. A refugee can be in receipt of welfare benefits but still sponsor his or her family members to come to the UK.

 

There is also provision in the Immigration Rules for a refugee to sponsor the entry of children to whom the refuge is related but who are not his or her own children. For example, the children might be nieces or nephews or grandchildren. Again this is exempt from the minimum income threshold of £18,600. A refugee can be in receipt of welfare benefits but still sponsor his or her family members to come to the UK.

 

Where a family member of a person born in the UK needs to pay a ridiculously high visa fee (about £1500 for spouse visa at the moment) for a family member of a refugee it is free of charge. Where a family member of a person born in the UK has to pay an NHS surcharge (£600 for spouse visa application) the family member of a refugee does not have to pay anything.

 

Yes the law applies to all who live in the UK, but some people get preferential treatment and don't have to meet the same requirements as the indigenous population. Then people with their heads up their <deleted> are shocked when the local population has the audacity to think it not something to be celebrated.

 

And by the way any refugee who has reached the shores of the UK by any other way than on a plane has already passed through multiple safe countries and as such has no right seeking asylum in the UK and that IS the law, and as you say 'the same law applies to all'.

 

 

With respect, any laws applying to asylum seekers or refugees are irrelevant to this issue. He is a British citizen that has been living in  Thailand and now wants to bring his wife, who is a Thai national, to live in the UK. The only law that is relevant is the law governing bringing a spouse from a non EU country; as I have said before he should have made sure that he was fully aware of those rules and if he did not then it is irresponsible, especially as it has meant leaving a wife and young daughter behind.

 

To the best of my knowledge, we do not even know if he has made an application for her (and the daughter) or if he just realised that he does not meet the minimum income requirement, and did not bother to waste money on an application that would of failed; either way, he cannot expect to be excused from the relative law just because he was a bit part celebrity 30 years ago. I have 2 friends that have brought their Thai wives back to live in the UK, they fulfilled the income criteria that the law demands, and so must he ..... and again, as I have said before, I hope that he is sending monthly maintenance payments for his daughter ?? ✌️✌️

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

 

Not sure what you mean. However to repeat myself this is the situation today in 2017. When none British citizens are given preferential treatment over British citizens.

 

It has been going on for the past 66 years, refugees families are treated as one case, if the fathers life is in danger then so are his children's.  And unless you want to appear as being completely heartless then do not compare the plight of those ravaged by war to a Brit who feels like importing a bride regardless of his means to support her.

[Drago]

3 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It has been going on for the past 66 years, refugees families are treated as one case, if the fathers life is in danger then so are his children's.  And unless you want to appear as being completely heartless then do not compare the plight of those ravaged by war to a Brit who feels like importing a bride regardless of his means to support her.

As it stands the boyfriend of a gay man from Ghana who says he is persecuted in his own country because of his sexuality can apply for a visa free of charge, does not have to pay NHS surcharge, and his boyfriend who is already in the UK does not have to meet the minimum requirements regarding accommodation and finances, the only requirement they have to prove is that they were a couple before the first one left Ghana. Of course once they are sorted they are going to need their 'sisters' to come over to.

 

You think this is fair? That is why they are laughing at the people of the UK.

[sanemax]

5 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

Not sure what you mean. However to repeat myself this is the situation today in 2017. When none British citizens are given preferential treatment over British citizens.

The woman in this story isnt a British citizen and she hasnt been given preferential treatment over British citizens

    

[Kieran00001]

17 minutes ago, Drago said:

As it stands the boyfriend of a gay man from Ghana who says he is persecuted in his own country because of his sexuality can apply for a visa free of charge, does not have to pay NHS surcharge, and his boyfriend who is already in the UK does not have to meet the minimum requirements regarding accommodation and finances, the only requirement they have to prove is that they were a couple before the first one left Ghana. Of course once they are sorted they are going to need their 'sisters' to come over to.

 

You think this is fair? That is why they are laughing at the people of the UK.

 

What you are talking about is a hypothetical of someone cheating the system, do you really have to ask whether cheating is fair?

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, sanemax said:

The woman in this story isnt a British citizen and she hasnt been given preferential treatment over British citizens

    

Correct,

 

5 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It has been going on for the past 66 years, refugees families are treated as one case, if the fathers life is in danger then so are his children's.  And unless you want to appear as being completely heartless then do not compare the plight of those ravaged by war to a Brit who feels like importing a bride regardless of his means to support her.

she’s the wife of a British citizen,perhaps that is why she has not received preferential treatment.

[nontabury]

5 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It has been going on for the past 66 years, refugees families are treated as one case, if the fathers life is in danger then so are his children's.  And unless you want to appear as being completely heartless then do not compare the plight of those ravaged by war to a Brit who feels like importing a bride regardless of his means to support her.

It’s nothing to do with being heartless, unless your referring to the 15,000-20,000 

children of British subjects who are separated from their British fathers ( look up Skype children) in the meantime we allow preferential entry to relatives of none British citizens into the UK. 

Regarding those who have been granted asylum,and how many of those are genuine? Why is it automatically assumed that their children are also in danger.

 All I’m saying Kieran, is that IF any preferences are to be allowed, then it should be to people who have some connection with the UK.

 

 

 

 

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, nontabury said:

It’s nothing to do with being heartless, unless your referring to the 15,000-20,000 

children of British subjects who are separated from their British fathers ( look up Skype children) in the meantime we allow preferential entry to relatives of none British citizens into the UK. 

Regarding those who have been granted asylum,and how many of those are genuine? Why is it automatically assumed that their children are also in danger.

 All I’m saying Kieran, is that IF any preferences are to be allowed, then it should be to people who have some connection with the UK.

 

 

 

 

 

In your opinion, in mine the preference should be to those whose lives are in danger. And there is a very vigorous  process that an asylum seeker goes through, it is not as you imply.

 

And why are their 15-20,000 children living without their fathers?  If the father cannot live in the country that their child is in then they have the right to apply to bring them to live with them in the UK even if they do not earn enough to meet the threshold, as do the disabled, but what is wrong with the remainder, why cant they earn this barely over minimum wage salary?  If they really wanted to be with their kids you would have thought they could take a second job.

[sanemax]

36 minutes ago, nontabury said:

It’s nothing to do with being heartless, unless your referring to the 15,000-20,000 

children of British subjects who are separated from their British fathers ( look up Skype children) in the meantime we allow preferential entry to relatives of none British citizens into the UK. 

 

These Children can get a UK Passport and then go and live in the UK

[nontabury]

23 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

In your opinion, in mine the preference should be to those whose lives are in danger. And there is a very vigorous  process that an asylum seeker goes through, it is not as you imply.

 

And why are their 15-20,000 children living without their fathers?  If the father cannot live in the country that their child is in then they have the right to apply to bring them to live with them in the UK even if they do not earn enough to meet the threshold, as do the disabled, but what is wrong with the remainder, why cant they earn this barely over minimum wage salary?  If they really wanted to be with their kids you would have thought they could take a second job.

Not knowing all the reasons,perhaps Due to ill health for example, they cannot obtain employment or maybe the region they settle in, has low wages or high unemployment. 

Regarding a vigorous process to obtain Ayslum,that is true,although many know how to play the system. In addition there are many exemption to the rules and regulations that a British citizen has to go through. All you have to do is google  UK GOV.

[Kieran00001]

6 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Not knowing all the reasons,perhaps Due to ill health for example, they cannot obtain employment or maybe the region they settle in, has low wages or high unemployment. 

Regarding a vigorous process to obtain Ayslum,that is true,although many know how to play the system. In addition there are many exemption to the rules and regulations that a British citizen has to go through. All you have to do is google  UK GOV.

 

One of the exemptions is ill health.  Settling in a region with high unemployment is hardly grounds for being able to bring in an immigrant likely to become a burden on the state, what I can't fathom is why so many immigrants manage it while so many Brits do not, my feeling is that they are probably not the brightest bunch who fail.

[nontabury]

9 minutes ago, sanemax said:

These Children can get a UK Passport and then go and live in the UK

Correct, yet there are many reasons why the British partner cannot take care of their children by themselves, for example illness,or no one to take care of the children,while they’re at work. It would also result in the children being seperated from their mother.

As I continue to stress,there are exemptions,unfortunately these only apply to the offsprings and relatives of none British citizens.

Surely we should take care of our own citizens first, the same as most other countries.

[transam]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

One of the exemptions is ill health.  Settling in a region with high unemployment is hardly grounds for being able to bring in an immigrant likely to become a burden on the state, what I can't fathom is why so many immigrants manage it while so many Brits do not, my feeling is that they are probably not the brightest bunch who fail.

Because immigrants have sorted the UK legal stuff out and past the info on perhaps...

[nontabury]

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

One of the exemptions is ill health.  Settling in a region with high unemployment is hardly grounds for being able to bring in an immigrant likely to become a burden on the state, what I can't fathom is why so many immigrants manage it while so many Brits do not, my feeling is that they are probably not the brightest bunch who fail.

Some people know how to play the system,some do not.

[nontabury]

Just now, transam said:

Because immigrants have sorted the UK legal stuff out and past the info on perhaps...

You only have to look up, who the Lawyers are, who specialise in immigration matters.

[sanemax]

14 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Correct, yet there are many reasons why the British partner cannot take care of their children by themselves, for example illness,or no one to take care of the children,while they’re at work. It would also result in the children being seperated from their mother.

As I continue to stress,there are exemptions,unfortunately these only apply to the offsprings and relatives of none British citizens.

Surely we should take care of our own citizens first, the same as most other countries.

The lady in question is Thai , not British .

You seem to be saying that the UK should not be helping non UK citizens , but the UK should help this non UK Citizen .

   Seems quite contradictory .

[Kieran00001]

21 minutes ago, transam said:

Because immigrants have sorted the UK legal stuff out and past the info on perhaps...

 

And info sites like this one don't exist for UK citizens, they just can't find the info?

[Kieran00001]

22 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Some people know how to play the system,some do not.

 

Some are bright, some are dim.

[Kieran00001]

22 minutes ago, nontabury said:

You only have to look up, who the Lawyers are, who specialise in immigration matters.

 

http://otssolicitors.co.uk/paul-gulbenkian

Like this foreign sounding name?  Probably used to be a refugee himself, right?

[7by7]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

<snip>

As I continue to stress,there are exemptions,unfortunately these only apply to the offsprings and relatives of none British citizens.

Surely we should take care of our own citizens first, the same as most other countries.

The rules for family immigration are the same for all, regardless of the nationality of the applicant or sponsor; as are any exceptions from the standard requirements contained within the rules.

 

1 hour ago, transam said:

Because immigrants have sorted the UK legal stuff out and past the info on perhaps...

Surely any sensible sponsor of a family migrant, spouse, partner or child, would discover what is required, what you term 'the legal stuff,' prior to applying and made sure that they meet the requirements and have the required evidence to show that they do.

 

Yes, such information does get passed onto others by those who already know it; Thai Visa has a sub forum dedicated to just that!

 

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

Some people know how to play the system,some do not.

Playing the system is knowing the rules and how to satisfy them. You have sought advice here on a settlement application; does that mean you are playing the system? Of course it doesn't!

 

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

You only have to look up, who the Lawyers are, who specialise in immigration matters.

No idea what this means. Are you saying that it should not be possible for people to seek professional immigration advice?

[7by7]

3 hours ago, nontabury said:

she’s the wife of a British citizen,perhaps that is why she has not received preferential treatment.

 

She is being treated exactly the same, assuming she has even made an application, as any other applicant under the family migration rules; whether the sponsor is a British citizen or not; you don't have to be a British citizen to sponsor a family member under the rules, merely legally settled in the UK.

 

Asylum applications are covered by a different part of the immigration rules, and they also apply equally to family members of British citizens who may be seeking asylum as to all others. In other words, it is possible for the family member of a British citizen to obtain asylum in the UK if the requirements for same are met. In which case, of course, they would not have to meet the requirements of Appendices FM and FM-SE of the rules.

 

For the rules on asylum, rather than tabloid hysteria, see the Immigration Rules parts 11, 11BA, 11B and 12.

[wakeupplease]

So did he move to Thai found it did not suit him after a few years and now wants to go home (like so many) and take the family. Just like Thailand the UK has laws and one is that you have a job that gives an  income above a certain figure, if you do not then the rest of the British workforce would have to support this mans wife and pay child support, NHS and so on.

 

If the law is not there he could take the wife and kids and sign on for welfare payments, expect to get a free home and god knows what else at the expense of all British tax payers. Like you would get anything here in that way, not a chance is there. When Thailand starts giving support to Farangs maybe the rest of the world will do so also until then the law is the law and having done all of it and paid the costs of visa's I say we need it, not a problem. The wife can get a British Passport then you can go backwards and forwards as you like, no more problems, except for me having to jump through loads of red tape here.

 

He must be a star of the past that blew his cash on living in Thai, he now pays the price for being stupid and not doing all the checks like I and many others had to.

 

Get a job mate and earn the cash to support your wife and all will be ok.

 

Asylum and refugees are a different ball game, The UK does as the UN asks, here they just push them back into the sea. Do not try to confuse the issue here with a comparison done by people who do not know what refugee means.