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

[7by7]

27 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Which does counter what the OP was claiming, that they have been up against this law since their child was born, in actual fact they could have just registered their child and perhaps still could if they are not yet 18.

 As i said much earlier in this topic, the article quoted in the OP is very short of facts when it comes to Uk immigration law.

 

There is no need to register the child as British; as she was born after 1st July 2006 then she is British already; provided Murray is, himself, British not by descent; i.e. was born in the UK or a qualifying territory and at least one of his parents was British.

 

If so, then the child is British by descent, i.e. inherited her citizenship from her father, and so cannot pass her British citizenship onto her children unless they are born in the UK or a qualifying territory.

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Have you read the directive? I linked to it before, but here it is again

 

It does cover qualifying non EU national family members of EEA nationals. From the preamble

 

You are also still confusing the UK's immigration rules with the directive and the UK's EEA regulations. They are not the same and there is no minimum income required for those entering via the EEA route. The financial requirement is part of the immigration rules, not the EEA regulations.

 

Read paragragh 10, it is up to the individual state to set the conditions of stay of over 3 months to make sure that they do not become a burden, the UK sets this at 18k, Holland at 1500 Euro per month, France at 800 Euro per month and Spaín at just being in employment.  Nothing you have posted counters anything or changes anything, you must meet the individual states requirment in order to remain.

[7by7]

16 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I am not forgetting anything, but does it seem to fair to you that an EU immigrant can receive benefits after only a few months of paying in taxes whereas a British citizens spouse and parent of a British child cannot for 5 years and if they were to require benefits then they would be deported?  I am not complaining about the benefits given to some immigrants, I am disgusted with the way our government is treating British familes, there should at least be continuity, if we can afford to take in EU immigrants who quickly become a burden then we can afford British people's spouses.  The fact that we have to take in the EU immigrants has actually nothing to do with what I am talking about, which is British made benefits rules.

 I am not saying it is right nor fair; but it is the law; at least until Brexit.

 

I would not be at all surprised if on some other internet forum a, for example, Spanish citizen was saying exactly the same about British migrants in Spain!

 

But are EEA migrants a drain on the UK public purse? Do they come here to leech off the UK's benefits system? Not when taken as a whole: UK gains £20bn from European migrants, UCL economists reveal

Quote

European migrants to the UK are not a drain on Britain’s finances and pay out far more in taxes than they receive in state benefits, a new study has revealed.

 

Edited October 14, 2017 by 7by7

[7by7]

10 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Read paragragh 10, it is up to the individual state to set the conditions of stay of over 3 months to make sure that they do not become a burden, the UK sets this at 18k, Holland at 1500 Euro per month, France at 800 Euro per month and Spaín at just being in employment.  Nothing you have posted counters anything or changes anything, you must meet the individual states requirment in order to remain.

Yes, the right to remain for longer than three months is subject to conditions; but the UK has not set a minimum income of £18K for EEA migrants. If they had the agricultural industry, for one, would be suffering a major labour shortage as that employs many EEA migrants who earn less than this.

 

I have tried to show you the difference between the UK's immigration rules and the UK's EEA regulations; I have linked to both of them so you can read them yourself. That you still fail to understand that difference is beyond my comprehension.

 

So I give up and will let you continue in your misunderstanding.

[Kieran00001]

14 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 I am not saying it is right nor fair; but it is the law; at least until Brexit.

 

I would not be at all surprised if on some other internet forum a, for example, Spanish citizen was saying exactly the same about British migrants in Spain!

 

But are EEA migrants a drain on the UK public purse? Do they come here to leech off the UK's benefits system? Not when taken as a whole: UK gains £20bn from European migrants, UCL economists reveal

 

 

Before accusing others of comprehension problems at least try to comprehend what is written yourself, I clearly stated that I was not complaining about EU migrants being given benefits, all I complain is that we cannot afford the same for British people's spouses, to me that is ridiculous.

[Kieran00001]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Yes, the right to remain for longer than three months is subject to conditions; but the UK has not set a minimum income of £18K for EEA migrants. If they had the agricultural industry, for one, would be suffering a major labour shortage as that employs many EEA migrants who earn less than this.

 

I have tried to show you the difference between the UK's immigration rules and the UK's EEA regulations; I have linked to both of them so you can read them yourself. That you still fail to understand that difference is beyond my comprehension.

 

So I give up and will let you continue in your misunderstanding.

 

Before giving up please state what you are trying to achieve by pointing out these differences.  The EEA regulation being an irrelevance to their case as they must meet the UK's regulations as well, as is the case for all countries in the EU, you cannot bring in a non EU spouse under EEA regulation without meeting whatever condition the country sets, which varies and is the reason many are choosing Spain and Italy before entering the UK under the Singh route.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

2 hours ago, rasg said:

I hope he did well out of it but I doubt it. It also appeared in the Mail, the Star and the Sun too and it was almost identical in each newspaper. And you have finally acknowledged that you just don't know. 47 pages of guessing, name blackening and you don't know.

 

Huh ….. I wrote 47 pages of guessing and name blackening did I ?? …….what on earth are you talking about, are you feeling okay ??

 

 ……… and what don't I know ?? .... if you are going to tell someone that they don't know something, it's not a bad idea to tell them what it is, it makes it difficult to respond otherwise; but I do now know that you read the Mail, the Star and the Sun  ?? ??

[rasg]

3 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Huh ….. I wrote 47 pages of guessing and name blackening did I ?? …….what on earth are you talking about, are you feeling okay ??

 

 ……… and what don't I know ?? .... if you are going to tell someone that they don't know something, it's not a bad idea to tell them what it is, it makes it difficult to respond otherwise; but I do now know that you read the Mail, the Star and the Sun

I didn't say that you write 47 pages of it. Just that 99% of the 47 pages of it was supposition and guesswork which you contributed to quite a bit in your guesswork and name calling.

 

Strangely enough I don't read any of the newspapers nowadays. I went Googling to find out if any of the other newspapers running the same story added any other information. They didn't.

[rasg]

55 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

But are EEA migrants a drain on the UK public purse? Do they come here to leech off the UK's benefits system? Not when taken as a whole: UK gains £20bn from European migrants, UCL economists reveal

It depends who does the research and who you believe. You get a different answer from all of the "experts". I don't believe the £20bn positive figure at all.

[Eff1n2ret]

36 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

Before giving up please state what you are trying to achieve by pointing out these differences.  The EEA regulation being an irrelevance to their case as they must meet the UK's regulations as well

7by7 has immersed himself for years in the immigration regulations and giving valued advice to many on this forum, and he is absolutely right in what he has been saying on this subject. If there were no difference between the Immigration Rules and the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 there would be no point in the latter. The Immigration Rules cover foreigners who require "Leave to Enter or Remain"; EEA nationals are not given "Leave to Enter or Remain", they are simply admitted under the Regulations, with no stamp in their passports and their non-EEA spouses are issued with Family Permits with almost no grounds for being refused - only if they were a security risk, or the marriage was deemed to be bogus, and the onus of proof would be on the ECO.

If you don't understand this, you are simply proving that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[KhonJaiYen]

rasg is correct, it depends on which side of the Brexit fence you are sitting. I read an article that states that new facts and figures released this week show that a nonEU citizen is required to provide income of 35000 pounds per year to be issued a visa, nonEU spouses married to British citizens must have 18600 pounds per year so that they are not a burden on the state. EU citizens on the other hand cost the British tax payer 7800 pounds a year. Fake news, who knows, but living in Lincolnshire I see an awful lot of EU citizens cashing in their giros at the bank every week.

[7by7]

52 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Before giving up please state what you are trying to achieve by pointing out these differences.  The EEA regulation being an irrelevance to their case as they must meet the UK's regulations as well, as is the case for all countries in the EU, you cannot bring in a non EU spouse under EEA regulation without meeting whatever condition the country sets, which varies and is the reason many are choosing Spain and Italy before entering the UK under the Singh route.

 

As Eff1n2ret, who knows more about immigration matters than I, says the EEA regulations are not an irrelevance. It is not a matter of meeting the requirements of both the UK's immigration rules and the EEA regulations; it is one or the other.

 

EEA and Swiss nationals exercising a treaty right in the UK come under the EEA regulations, as do their qualifying non EEA or Swiss national family members. Everyone else comes under the immigration rules.

 

The same applies to all other EEA member states and Switzerland.

 

Two different sets of rules to cover two different situations.

 

I have linked to both; maybe you should actually read them before commenting further.

[Kieran00001]

25 minutes ago, Eff1n2ret said:

7by7 has immersed himself for years in the immigration regulations and giving valued advice to many on this forum, and he is absolutely right in what he has been saying on this subject. If there were no difference between the Immigration Rules and the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 there would be no point in the latter. The Immigration Rules cover foreigners who require "Leave to Enter or Remain"; EEA nationals are not given "Leave to Enter or Remain", they are simply admitted under the Regulations, with no stamp in their passports and their non-EEA spouses are issued with Family Permits with almost no grounds for being refused - only if they were a security risk, or the marriage was deemed to be bogus, and the onus of proof would be on the ECO.

If you don't understand this, you are simply proving that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

But we are not talking about EU nationals but spouses of EU nationals, which according to the EEA rules are to be treated the same, but they also state that they can only remain for 3 months before meeting othe requirements, these requirements varying from state to state, so what is the relavence that is all I am asking, you can already enter the UK for 6 months as a visitor, the issue is remaining permanently,

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, KhonJaiYen said:

rasg is correct, it depends on which side of the Brexit fence you are sitting. I read an article that states that new facts and figures released this week show that a nonEU citizen is required to provide income of 35000 pounds per year to be issued a visa, nonEU spouses married to British citizens must have 18600 pounds per year so that they are not a burden on the state. EU citizens on the other hand cost the British tax payer 7800 pounds a year. Fake news, who knows, but living in Lincolnshire I see an awful lot of EU citizens cashing in their giros at the bank every week.

Wherever they got those giros from, it wasn't the UK government. UK benefits are paid directly into the claimant's bank; they haven't used giros for years!

 

The level of income required for entry to the UK depends on the visa applied for. For example; spouse visas require at least £18,600 p.a.; Tier 2 (general) visa requires the higher of £30,000 or the appropriate pay for the job;  Tier 4 (General) student visas requires no set minimum, just sufficient money to support oneself for the duration of the course; there is also no set minimum for a Tier 5 ( Temporary Worker - Creative and sporting) visa, but they either need sufficient funds to support themselves whilst in the UK or a guarantee from their sponsor that they wont claim public funds whilst here.

[Kieran00001]

17 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

As Eff1n2ret, who knows more about immigration matters than I, says the EEA regulations are not an irrelevance. It is not a matter of meeting the requirements of both the UK's immigration rules and the EEA regulations; it is one or the other.

 

EEA and Swiss nationals exercising a treaty right in the UK come under the EEA regulations, as do their qualifying non EEA or Swiss national family members. Everyone else comes under the immigration rules.

 

The same applies to all other EEA member states and Switzerland.

 

Two different sets of rules to cover two different situations.

 

I have linked to both; maybe you should actually read them before commenting further.

 

The treaty right only extends for 3 months though, as I have previously stated, before they must also meet local requirements, so again, how does this actually help anyone who is trying to bring in their spouse?  

[jenny2017]

 

      Amazing. All the migrants in Germany have no problem to get people from their family in and the taxpayers bleed for it. How can they be so inhuman to revoke a visa for his wife?

 

     I hope that they'll soon be together, time for a petition with many signatures. I'm in. 

[7by7]

20 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

But we are not talking about EU nationals but spouses of EU nationals, which according to the EEA rules are to be treated the same, but they also state that they can only remain for 3 months before meeting othe requirements, these requirements varying from state to state, so what is the relavence that is all I am asking, you can already enter the UK for 6 months as a visitor, the issue is remaining permanently,

 

10 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The treaty right only extends for 3 months though, as I have previously stated, before they must also meet local requirements, so again, how does this actually help anyone who is trying to bring in their spouse?  

 

Spouses are qualifying family members under the directive. As previously shown by a direct quote from the directive a non EEA national spouse must be treated exactly the same as their EEA national spouse. Both during the first three months of residence and thereafter; for as long as the EEA national is exercising a treaty right (do you know what they are?) and there is no time limit on how long they may do that for. Indeed, after 5 years of doing so they can apply for permanent residence, which means exactly what it says; permanent residence whether they are exercising a treaty right or not.

 

This means that, like their EEA national spouse, they come under the EEA regulations, NOT the immigration rules.

 

A member state can set whatever conditions it wishes within it's own immigration rules; but it's EEA regulations, for many that's the Schengen code, must comply with the directive.

 

To be blunt, instead of arguing from a position of ignorance, read the directive, all of it; read the UK's EEA regulations, all of it; read the UK's family migration rules, all of it. I've linked to all of them previously.

Edited October 14, 2017 by 7by7

[rasg]

10 minutes ago, jenny2017 said:

 

      Amazing. All the migrants in Germany have no problem to get people from their family in and the taxpayers bleed for it. How can they be so inhuman to revoke a visa for his wife?

 

     I hope that they'll soon be together, time for a petition with many signatures. I'm in. 

 

Not me. He has to abide by the rules the way that we all have to. It may take him a while and getting a "normal" job would speed up the process as he wouldn’t need a years accounts.

 

And I doubt they revoked a visa for his wife. She hasn’t even applied yet as far as we know. Have you read the rest of this thread?

 

 

Edited October 14, 2017 by rasg

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, rasg said:

The Government rational is that a couple living here where one is for outside the EU should be able to stand on their own two feet financially without having to rely on tax payers money to top up their income to live. It sounds reasonable to me. I object to the high cost of the visas though.

It would be reasonable, if there were not exemptions for Non Brits.

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, nontabury said:

It would be reasonable, if there were not exemptions for Non Brits.

The financial requirement, and any exemptions or variations, applies equally to all those applying under the family migrant rules. The nationality of their sponsor is totally irrelevant.

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

If you cannot live in the spouses country, which could be argued due to not being able to gain employment there, then you can apply to bring your spouse to the UK despite not earning enough, its all made clear in the website, they do not intend to break up families but most of the time the person just doesn't want to live in the other country, those people will not be entertained, it must be proven as being not a possibility, and this failed actor turned cabby would no doubt have that on his side, what would Thailand find for him to do?

1/ Where exactly on the web site does it state what you say?

2/ How many applicants have been successful in using this criteria to gain entry?

 

I ask this 2nd question, as I believe the parents of 15,000-20,000 Skype children would be able to use this as a way of bringing their families together.

 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

Spouses are qualifying family members under the directive. As previously shown by a direct quote from the directive a non EEA national spouse must be treated exactly the same as their EEA national spouse. Both during the first three months of residence and thereafter; for as long as the EEA national is exercising a treaty right (do you know what they are?) and there is no time limit on how long they may do that for. Indeed, after 5 years of doing so they can apply for permanent residence, which means exactly what it says; permanent residence whether they are exercising a treaty right or not.

 

This means that, like their EEA national spouse, they come under the EEA regulations, NOT the immigration rules.

 

A member state can set whatever conditions it wishes within it's own immigration rules; but it's EEA regulations, for many that's the Schengen code, must comply with the directive.

 

To be blunt, instead of arguing from a position of ignorance, read the directive, all of it; read the UK's EEA regulations, all of it; read the UK's family migration rules, all of it. I've linked to all of them previously.

 

You could just answer my question, how does this help someone trying to bring their non EU spouse intimthe UK.  You say that the treaty right applies after th 3 months but it does state that after the 3 months that they will have to meet further requirements so as not to be a burden, that is meeting the financial threshold, right?  So what difference does any of this make, you seem intent to avoid answering that, is that because it makes none?

[Kieran00001]

56 minutes ago, nontabury said:

1/ Where exactly on the web site does it state what you say?

2/ How many applicants have been successful in using this criteria to gain entry?

 

I ask this 2nd question, as I believe the parents of 15,000-20,000 Skype children would be able to use this as a way of bringing their families together.

 

 

Here is the quote to answer question 1:

 

If you don’t meet these requirements you may still be able to apply for a visa or extend your permission to stay if:

 

you have a child in the UK who is a British citizen or has lived in the UK for 7 years and it would be unreasonable for them to leave the UK

 

there would be very significant difficulties for you and your partner if you lived together as a couple outside the UK that couldn’t be overcome

 

it would breach your human rights to stop you coming to the UK or make you leave

 

 

Question 2 I cannot answer as that is not posted anywhere, perhaps you could request it under a freedom of information request.  Not that all of those 15-20,000 childrens parent would be able to claim that living together in the other country would be very significantly difficult anyway, just some, some just don't want to or want to be able to earn more than they would in the other country.

 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

Spouses are qualifying family members under the directive. As previously shown by a direct quote from the directive a non EEA national spouse must be treated exactly the same as their EEA national spouse. Both during the first three months of residence and thereafter; for as long as the EEA national is exercising a treaty right (do you know what they are?) and there is no time limit on how long they may do that for. Indeed, after 5 years of doing so they can apply for permanent residence, which means exactly what it says; permanent residence whether they are exercising a treaty right or not.

 

This means that, like their EEA national spouse, they come under the EEA regulations, NOT the immigration rules.

 

A member state can set whatever conditions it wishes within it's own immigration rules; but it's EEA regulations, for many that's the Schengen code, must comply with the directive.

 

To be blunt, instead of arguing from a position of ignorance, read the directive, all of it; read the UK's EEA regulations, all of it; read the UK's family migration rules, all of it. I've linked to all of them previously.

 

I have read again and now I understand, hard to understand why you have explained it so poorly though, what you have neglected to say the entire time is that the treaty rights cannot be used in your own state, so all of this is only relevant to making the Singh route anyway, I thought you were claiming that someone could enter their own state on this right as you kept just saying all EEA nationals not EEA nationals in another EU state, but never mind we are on the same page now.  

 

Going back to what we were talking about long ago, I can see that this does provide a way in without meeting the individual state requirement for a spouse visa, but after 3 months they will need a residency permit, that requires proof of either capability to support yourself or dependency and the same proof from the sponsor.  I think you will find that takes us back to square one, depending on the state the amount deemed necessary will vary, the UK seems to think this amount is 18k for a couple without children.

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

The financial requirement, and any exemptions or variations, applies equally to all those applying under the family migrant rules. The nationality of their sponsor is totally irrelevant.

Again I refer to post 635, which relates to the exemptions for Relations of asylum applicants.

[nontabury]

50 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Here is the quote to answer question 1:

 

If you don’t meet these requirements you may still be able to apply for a visa or extend your permission to stay if:

 

you have a child in the UK who is a British citizen or has lived in the UK for 7 years and it would be unreasonable for them to leave the UK

 

there would be very significant difficulties for you and your partner if you lived together as a couple outside the UK that couldn’t be overcome

 

it would breach your human rights to stop you coming to the UK or make you leave

 

 

Question 2 I cannot answer as that is not posted anywhere, perhaps you could request it under a freedom of information request.  Not that all of those 15-20,000 childrens parent would be able to claim that living together in the other country would be very significantly difficult anyway, just some, some just don't want to or want to be able to earn more than they would in the other country.

 

Regarding Human rights, that approach has been tried by more than a few, without success.

 

I’m sure you are aware that their is a financial requirement for farangs to obtain a retirement visa in Thailand. If you cannot meet that figure your out. If for instance the Thai government,were to double that amount, that would result in many more children being effected and added to the Skype numbers.

 Likewise there are many restrictions on Farangs obtaining employment in Thailand. It’s all on the whim of the government.

 

[Kieran00001]

24 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Regarding Human rights, that approach has been tried by more than a few, without success.

 

I’m sure you are aware that their is a financial requirement for farangs to obtain a retirement visa in Thailand. If you cannot meet that figure your out. If for instance the Thai government,were to double that amount, that would result in many more children being effected and added to the Skype numbers.

 Likewise there are many restrictions on Farangs obtaining employment in Thailand. It’s all on the whim of the government.

 

 

I think the one to try would be the very significant difficulties one, if you can't work in Thailand and your wife is a full time mother for instance and without any family help, that could constitute a significant difficulty as you have no means to provide for your British child in Thailand.

[rasg]

22 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

I think the one to try would be the very significant difficulties one, if you can't work in Thailand and your wife is a full time mother for instance and without any family help, that could constitute a significant difficulty as you have no means to provide for your British child in Thailand.

But it's UKVI and the Government that decides on what constitutes a significant difficulty. The bar has been set very high.

Edited October 14, 2017 by rasg

[Kieran00001]

27 minutes ago, rasg said:

But it's UKVI and the Government that decides on what constitutes a significant difficulty. The bar has been set very high.

 

I don't know where the bar has been set, I just know what it says there and my interpretation of that a lack of ability to provide in the other country may be enough for them, perhaps it wouldn't though.

[sanemax]

3 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Here is the quote to answer question 1:

 

If you don’t meet these requirements you may still be able to apply for a visa or extend your permission to stay if:

 

you have a child in the UK who is a British citizen or has lived in the UK for 7 years and it would be unreasonable for them to leave the UK

 

there would be very significant difficulties for you and your partner if you lived together as a couple outside the UK that couldn’t be overcome

 

it would breach your human rights to stop you coming to the UK or make you leave

That is quite contradictory, first it states that the Child is IN the UK , the Child needs to be in the UK.

  Then its states about the Child coming to the UK.