Stop tearing families apart based on earnings! Scrap minimum income requirement

[7by7]

4 hours ago, mshs said:

Yes, ofcourse!

 

Isn't it ironic that we let tens of thousands people into the most prosperous nation on earth for nothing and a 3rd world country requires that you have $25,000 to live there.

This topic is about the financial requirement for a UK family settlement visa; are you calling the UK a third world country?

[darren1971]

On 1/16/2019 at 11:16 PM, rasg said:

It's called living life where I live and experience. Something you don't have a lot of yet.

unfortunately time does not guarantee wisdom. I was interested in seeing your data to back your assumptions but I am not surprised to see none.

[darren1971]

On 1/15/2019 at 1:34 PM, 7by7 said:

Why are some people bringing the EU into this? The UK's immigration rules for non EEA nationals are nothing to do with the EU. This case is nothing to do with the EU; Brexit will have absolutely zero effect on the Family Migration rules and the financial requirement for same.

 

I have a feeling that Mr. Duffy is not telling the whole story. Which is a pity, as it means the government can easily ignore this petition; which they will anyway. 

 

In his petition, Mr Duffy says that 

But from what he says later, she was in the UK as a student. Which means she could have applied to remain in the UK as his spouse, i.e. convert her student visa to a spouse visa, without returning to the US to do so.

 

Which, as others have already said, is not true. Self employed income can be used to meet the requirement; see 9. Self-employment or Director or employee of a specified limited company in the UK of the financial appendix.

 

Plus, as she was in the UK as a student, Mrs. Duffy could work and so any income she received, employed or self employed, could have been added to his self employed income to reach the minimum.

 

Having said that, regular readers of this forum will know my opinion of the current financial requirement and the steps groups such as the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration have taken to try and persuade the government to revert back to the previous, far more sensible and above all else fairer system.

 

For those who don't know what that was, a brief summery.

 

A couple had to show that after tax, NICs and deducting all fixed outgoings, rent/mortgage, loans etc., they had a net income equal to or more than the income support level for a British family of the same size; currently £114.85 per week, £5972.20 p.a, for a couple; plus extra if either partner is financially responsible for a child or children.

 

Unfortunately, in this situation, as in many others, governments, no matter their political persuasion, don't do what's right; they do what's popular. The vast majority of British people want all immigration made harder, not easier!

 

Petitions on the for profit site Change.org have zero effect. The 110364 people who have signed Mr. Duffy's should sign this one on the official government petitions site instead; at least then with over 100,000 signatures the government will have to respond and consider debating it in Parliament.

 

Unfortunately, Change.org wont allow me to make that comment and so direct people to somewhere which may have a chance, albeit a very small chance, of actually changing anything!

 

I am also concerned that Change.org asked me for money when I signed (I didn't pay, which may be why I couldn't leave a comment?)! Where does that money go?

I would love a reversion to the previous fairer system too. I would dispute that it is a 'vast majority' that want to reduce immigration, maybe slim majority is closer to the truth.

[7by7]

16 minutes ago, darren1971 said:

I would love a reversion to the previous fairer system too. I would dispute that it is a 'vast majority' that want to reduce immigration, maybe slim majority is closer to the truth.

Maybe; but I still maintain that the vast majority do not care about this subject as it does not affect them.

 

BTW, I see the petition on the Parliament petitions site has had two more signatures since I posted the link; making a grand total of 104! Remember, it is this one which will get a response from the government if it reaches 10,000 signatures, and may even be debated in Parliament if it reaches 100,000 signatures.

 

There have been previous petitions about this on the Parliament site, which have come to nought as they haven't reached the minimum 10,000 signatures.

 

To all who read this; tell your family and friends, get them to sign it.

[rasg]

On 1/18/2019 at 10:44 AM, darren1971 said:

unfortunately time does not guarantee wisdom. I was interested in seeing your data to back your assumptions but I am not surprised to see none.

Using my eyes and ears and having common sense is the main trick. The figures show nothing about the use of police resources, the NHS, the sheer amount of translators that are needed for the Government departments, housing. I could go on but I have work to do.

 

On 1/18/2019 at 11:22 AM, 7by7 said:

Maybe; but I still maintain that the vast majority do not care about this subject as it does not affect them.

That is 100% the truth. The NIMBYs of this world and there are many are the first to shout that we should allow as many people in that want to come here. I work in hotels all over the country and at many, many hotels you are unlikely to hear an English accent. Go to Swindon and you won’t hear anything else. Walk down my High Street and you are unlikely to hear an English accent. Maybe 1 in 10 people.

 

[abrahamzvi]

On 1/15/2019 at 6:17 AM, darren1971 said:

As long as someone is working and not relying on state benefits they should be able to settle with their spouse.

 

Someone living in central London with 2 children and a mortgage, earning £18.6k a year would struggle to support the family, someone living in Manchester with no children, in a house they have already paid for could comfortably support themselves on less than £18.6k... but they would be stopped from settling with their spouse... In the real world income in isolation is an unfair metric

Quite frankly I consider this regulation regarding a minimum income to be discriminatory and unsocial. It really means that poor people are not allowed to marry a foreigner (unfortunately even EU citizens will be foreigners after Brexit). It really discriminates poor citizens as opposed to well off people. Is this right? What about Labour supporting such regulations? What about the principle of equality for all?

[Krataiboy]

On 1/15/2019 at 7:25 AM, darren1971 said:

Well there is very little fact to back that up, the home office figures show that immigrants on average earn more, start more businesses and claim less benefits. 

 

As long as someone can support themselves without relying on state benefits and can supply a home then their spouse should be allowed to live with them, my wife will work when she gets here (harder than most of my staff do) and I imagine your wife does too... 

 

home office figures show that immigrants on average earn more, start more businesses and claim less benefits.

 

Trying to assess the pros and cons of the kind of mass migration seen in the UK over the last decade or so is tricky. However, the most recent and extensive academic research indicates from 1995 to 2011 that the cost to the taxpayer was over £110 billion - that is about £18 million per day.

 

According to a recent report by Migration Watch UK, this resulted from a lower employment rate of migrants overall, lower wages for some particular groups, and the cost of providing public services and benefits.

 

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/427

 

Immigration is not only desirable but essential, but needs to be controlled by the nation laying down the welcome mat rather than unelected EU bureaucrats or the globalists behind the new UN Migration Pact - to which our beleagured government has meekly signed up with no public consultation.

[simple1]

26 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

home office figures show that immigrants on average earn more, start more businesses and claim less benefits.

 

Trying to assess the pros and cons of the kind of mass migration seen in the UK over the last decade or so is tricky. However, the most recent and extensive academic research indicates from 1995 to 2011 that the cost to the taxpayer was over £110 billion - that is about £18 million per day.

 

According to a recent report by Migration Watch UK, this resulted from a lower employment rate of migrants overall, lower wages for some particular groups, and the cost of providing public services and benefits.

 

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/427

 

Immigration is not only desirable but essential, but needs to be controlled by the nation laying down the welcome mat rather than unelected EU bureaucrats or the globalists behind the new UN Migration Pact - to which our beleagured government has meekly signed up with no public consultation.

Migration Watch are not known for unbiased analysis, indeed comes in for a lot of criticism . However, to refute your last claim...

 

The UK Government reaffirmed its support for the GCM in response to a number of Parliamentary Questions in November 2018. It has stressed that the Compact is a “non-legally binding, cooperative framework”, which “reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration” policy, while setting out “a better international framework for action and co-operation on migration” It has also referred to important commitments set out in the Compact to tackle human trafficking and people smuggling, the recognition of a State’s right to control its borders, and acknowledgement of States’ responsibility to accept the return of their nationals who no longer have the right to remain elsewhere.

[4MyEgo]

On 1/15/2019 at 11:07 AM, darren1971 said:

 

'there has to be a threshold' why?

The threshold is set up so that she doesn't fall onto the welfare system which is struggling as it is all over the world where they have one, however if she came in the back door on a boat in Australia as a refugee they would be throwing money at her.

 

The system sucks, but if you want to bring in your future wife, you got to follow the rules, as draconian as they are, let's not forget, governments have to protect its citizens while at the same time pocket lots of money in other ways. Will let you work that one out.

[edwardflory]

I did NOT read every post ... but having friends from UK, Canada, Australia married to a American, some living in the US, others living in the UK, I have been told ( not verified by research or immigration ) that it is quite easy when ==>> married <<== to a American citizen to get papers for the UK citizens home quite easy.  Check with the American embassy and see if they have any information for you

[Bannoi]

For some its possible to circumvent these requirements by simply renouncing their British citizenship.

[natway09]

Lungstip,,, Thailand does not break up families people who should have never settled here do !!

[sandyf]

On 1/15/2019 at 7:16 AM, rasg said:

For the simple reason that people will end up claiming from the government fraudulently if they don't have enough money to live on and who loses out? The tax payer, as always ends up footing the bill one way or another. I'm not saying the system is perfect. It's not.

I wouldn't think that there are very many on the state pension getting £18,600 a year. 

Does that indicate it is government policy to have state pensioners below the benefit system level in the hope they do not make any claim.

Fortunately my wife has no desire whatsoever to ever live in the UK.

[Krataiboy]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

Migration Watch are not known for unbiased analysis, indeed comes in for a lot of criticism . However, to refute your last claim...

 

The UK Government reaffirmed its support for the GCM in response to a number of Parliamentary Questions in November 2018. It has stressed that the Compact is a “non-legally binding, cooperative framework”, which “reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration” policy, while setting out “a better international framework for action and co-operation on migration” It has also referred to important commitments set out in the Compact to tackle human trafficking and people smuggling, the recognition of a State’s right to control its borders, and acknowledgement of States’ responsibility to accept the return of their nationals who no longer have the right to remain elsewhere.

Why on earth should any country freely sign up to a charter unless they agree with its contents and are willing to implement them, irrespective of whether it is legally binding on not? In any case, non-binding agreements have a nasty habit of becoming binding over time.
 

One can only hope the UK government's little-publicised embrace of this highly controversial charter - spurned by the US and a number of other nations - will not end up negating UK's bid, via Brexit, to regain control of our borders and the migrants who cross them.

 

Oh, and innuendo apart, are you contesting something specific in the Migration Watch report I referenced? If so, let's hear it.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Krataiboy

[kingstonkid]

The bottom line is that all  countries have  restrictions.   No country wants to let people in if they think they are going to be a burden.

 

The US at least for now has the easier system for marriage. 

 

Try marrying a Thai lady and going home.  The hoops are made for you to fail and have nothing to do with money.   For Canada it is the marry faring move to his country  leave farang 

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 1/15/2019 at 7:36 AM, rasg said:

They have more kids and put a lot of strain on systems that are fit to burst. The police, education, the NHS, the roads.

Sorry, that's just not true. The facts, from a study commissioned by the British Government, show otherwise.

 

The study, published in September, 2018:

 

Quote

found EU citizens have little impact on UK workers’ wages, pay more in taxes, have no adverse impact on young Britons’ schooling, are not linked to increasing crime and contribute “much more” to the NHS than they consume.

 

Immigration myths blown apart by government-commissioned report

 

Incidentally, you do not get comprehensive and accurate data for the entire country from "living life where I live and experience" - you merely get localised anecdotes.

[simple1]

29 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Why on earth should any country freely sign up to a charter unless they agree with its contents and are willing to implement them, irrespective of whether it is legally binding on not? In any case, non-binding agreements have a nasty habit of becoming binding over time.
 

One can only hope the UK government's little-publicised embrace of this highly controversial charter - spurned by the US and a number of other nations - will not end up negating UK's bid, via Brexit, to regain control of our borders and the migrants who cross them.

 

Oh, and innuendo apart, are you contesting something specific in the Migration Watch report I referenced? If so, let's hear it.

A number of internal agreements permit amendments for nation states on specific points, nothing unusual. Just because you had little knowledge of the agreement, does not equate to "little-publicised". 

 

Do your research, Migration Watch had had a number of concerns raised as to political debate it feeds and other matters.

[7by7]

4 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

The threshold is set up so that she doesn't fall onto the welfare system which is struggling as it is all over the world where they have one, 

Which the previous system which counted income and expenditure before reaching the minimum figure did very well.

 

This current system counts income only and ignores expenditure. two examples of the effect of this.

 

1) Mr. A. earns £18,600 p.a.. Has a mortgage of £6,000 p.a. and services credit card and other debts by paying £2000 p.a. Disposable income before tax and NICs £10,600 p.a. Meets the financial requirement.

 

2) Mr. B earns £18,599 p.a. No mortgage, no rent, no debts to service. Disposable income before tax and NICs £18,599 pa. Does not meet the financial requirement.

 

How is that logical, let alone fair?

 

4 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

however if she came in the back door on a boat in Australia as a refugee they would be throwing money at her.

I can't speak for Australia; but in the UK that would not be the case. Asylum support; what you'll get.

[7by7]

4 hours ago, Bannoi said:

For some its possible to circumvent these requirements by simply renouncing their British citizenship.

 Err, no.

 

These requirements are there for the non EEA national* family members of British citizens and permanent UK residents who wish to settle in the UK with their British or UK resident family member.

 

The British partner renouncing their citizenship would make no difference. Indeed, if the Brit was an expat wishing to return home with their family, it would make doing so via the family rules impossible!

 

*And post Brexit probably EEA national.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

will not end up negating UK's bid, via Brexit, to regain control of our borders and the migrants who cross them.

The UK already has control over it's borders and the migrants who cross them.

 

This iniquitous financial requirement is nothing to do with the EU. 

Edited January 20, 2019 by 7by7

[7by7]

45 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Sorry, that's just not true. The facts, from a study commissioned by the British Government, show otherwise.

 

The study, published in September, 2018:

 

 

Immigration myths blown apart by government-commissioned report

 

Incidentally, you do not get comprehensive and accurate data for the entire country from "living life where I live and experience" - you merely get localised anecdotes.

 Whilst very true; that study is into the effect immigration of EEA nationals.

 

This topic is about immigration of non EEA natio9nals using the family rules.

 

They have very little effect on welfare systems as they are banned from claiming any public funds, and their British partner banned from claiming any on their behalf, until they have lived in the UK for at least 5 years.

 

Strain on the NHS, schools etc? The IHS surcharge, currently 400 pounds p.a., plus the vast profits the government makes on visa and LTR fees more than covers that. Plus in most cases the British partner is working and paying tax and in many the immigrant partner starts to work and pay tax as soon as possible after entry.

 

Though I suppose that last part could bring howls  about immigrants taking British jobs!

[laislica]

On 1/15/2019 at 2:34 PM, 7by7 said:

Why are some people bringing the EU into this? The UK's immigration rules for non EEA nationals are nothing to do with the EU. This case is nothing to do with the EU; Brexit will have absolutely zero effect on the Family Migration rules and the financial requirement for same.

 

I have a feeling that Mr. Duffy is not telling the whole story. Which is a pity, as it means the government can easily ignore this petition; which they will anyway. 

 

In his petition, Mr Duffy says that 

But from what he says later, she was in the UK as a student. Which means she could have applied to remain in the UK as his spouse, i.e. convert her student visa to a spouse visa, without returning to the US to do so.

 

Which, as others have already said, is not true. Self employed income can be used to meet the requirement; see 9. Self-employment or Director or employee of a specified limited company in the UK of the financial appendix.

 

Plus, as she was in the UK as a student, Mrs. Duffy could work and so any income she received, employed or self employed, could have been added to his self employed income to reach the minimum.

 

Having said that, regular readers of this forum will know my opinion of the current financial requirement and the steps groups such as the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration have taken to try and persuade the government to revert back to the previous, far more sensible and above all else fairer system.

 

For those who don't know what that was, a brief summery.

 

A couple had to show that after tax, NICs and deducting all fixed outgoings, rent/mortgage, loans etc., they had a net income equal to or more than the income support level for a British family of the same size; currently £114.85 per week, £5972.20 p.a, for a couple; plus extra if either partner is financially responsible for a child or children.

 

Unfortunately, in this situation, as in many others, governments, no matter their political persuasion, don't do what's right; they do what's popular. The vast majority of British people want all immigration made harder, not easier!

 

Petitions on the for profit site Change.org have zero effect. The 110364 people who have signed Mr. Duffy's should sign this one on the official government petitions site instead; at least then with over 100,000 signatures the government will have to respond and consider debating it in Parliament.

 

Unfortunately, Change.org wont allow me to make that comment and so direct people to somewhere which may have a chance, albeit a very small chance, of actually changing anything!

 

I am also concerned that Change.org asked me for money when I signed (I didn't pay, which may be why I couldn't leave a comment?)! Where does that money go?

 

Many thanks for this excellent post.
I have signed the pet ion that you gave the link for.

I signed the change.org one and like you, I was puzzled by the request for money.

 

However, why can't I, as a British citizen, marry who I like, wherever they were born and, provided that I have enough financial resources, bring here to the UK to visit or live.
Why should she/he have to pass exams to prove she/he can speak/read/write English and pass an exam to show that she/he "has UK knowledge"?

If she was from an ex commonwealth country, those rules don't apply (do they?).

 

When I married  my Thai wife I just assumed that we could travel and be together.

 Whata mistakea to makea!

Imagine my horror to learn the my wife could not even visit the UK for a holiday, even with me, unless she had a suitable visa!

 

Happily, I had already left the UK 2 decades ago and am permanently living in Spain.

The Spanish allowed me to bring her to Spain and eventually gave her a Spanish Foreigners ID Card, good for 5 years.

(Sure there were many hoops to jump through and it took about 6 months, but we were together.)

No language or knowledge tests!

 

Her ID is currently being renewed, again many hoops, but this time it will be the permanent type and good for 10 years.

 

Of course, in the UK we do not have ID Cards.

The passport is relied upon, but not everyone has a passport and so no ID?

 

Why not have ID Cards and NHS Cards like Spain?

I believe such cards would solve a lot of problems.....

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[4MyEgo]

40 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Which the previous system which counted income and expenditure before reaching the minimum figure did very well.

 

This current system counts income only and ignores expenditure. two examples of the effect of this.

 

1) Mr. A. earns £18,600 p.a.. Has a mortgage of £6,000 p.a. and services credit card and other debts by paying £2000 p.a. Disposable income before tax and NICs £10,600 p.a. Meets the financial requirement.

 

2) Mr. B earns £18,599 p.a. No mortgage, no rent, no debts to service. Disposable income before tax and NICs £18,599 pa. Does not meet the financial requirement.

 

How is that logical, let alone fair?

 

I can't speak for Australia; but in the UK that would not be the case. Asylum support; what you'll get.

I did some calculations back in Sydney Australia using a spreadsheet, actual living costs for a couple with a newborn, recorded day by day over a 365 day period, not taking into consideration mortgage, car payments etc etc that most people have.

 

Now I knew the cost of living was up there, but to my astonishment it costs you 50k to live in Sydney, now my mates couldn't believe, suffice to say when I gave them the spreadsheet, they nearly fell over backwards, asking how the F they have been surviving on 70k wages per annum, before tax and Medicare levy of 2%, it didn't add up, but it was what it was, that said, I would imagine the UK isn't any cheaper so both figures wouldn't meet actual living costs, but then again, that figure might be set so as not to make it too hard to support the partner and a newborn, food for thought ?

[7by7]

5 minutes ago, laislica said:

Why should she/he have to pass exams to prove she/he can speak/read/write English and pass an exam to show that she/he "has UK knowledge"?

If she was from an ex commonwealth country, those rules don't apply (do they?).

They do apply to all non EEA nationals, and post Brexit will probably apply to EEA nationals as well; including those from both ex Commonwealth countries and existing Commonwealth countries.

 

Children and elderly relatives* don't have to meet the language requirement. Neither do nationals of an English speaking country, e.g. USA, Canada, Australia, Jamaica.

 

Apart from children and elderly relatives, all applicants for ILR have to pass the LitUK test.

 

*A settlement visa for an elderly relative is extremely difficult, and very expensive, to obtain; see Apply as an adult coming to be cared for by a relative

 

As for your Spanish experience; this was easy for you as you are a British citizen exercising a treaty right in another EEA state and she is your wife so she could, and from what you say did, apply under the EEA regulations.. It would have been the same had you been a Spaniard living in the UK. Had you been a Spaniard living in Spain then she would have had to satisfy the Spanish immigration rules; whatever they are.

 

Of course, that last paragraph will probably be redundant after Brexit; hope you both have PR in Spain and will be ok!

[7by7]

@4MyEgo,

Valid point; but as I said in my first post in this topic, under the pre 2012 system

On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 1:34 PM, 7by7 said:

A couple had to show that after tax, NICs and deducting all fixed outgoings, rent/mortgage, loans etc., they had a net income equal to or more than the income support level for a British family of the same size; currently £114.85 per week, £5972.20 p.a, for a couple; plus extra if either partner is financially responsible for a child or children

Now obviously the cost of living, especially housing costs, varies widely across the UK; as I`m sure it does in Australia. But even taking that into account, the UK government insists a couple where one partner is an immigrant needs an income considerably higher than that they say a wholly British couple can live on!

[Krataiboy]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

The UK already has control over it's borders and the migrants who cross them.

 

This iniquitous financial requirement is nothing to do with the EU. 

Your idea of control and mine are obviously different.  

 

"Over one million illegal immigrants are in Britain."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4967690/Million-illegal-immigrants-no

[Krataiboy]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

A number of internal agreements permit amendments for nation states on specific points, nothing unusual. Just because you had little knowledge of the agreement, does not equate to "little-publicised". 

 

Do your research, Migration Watch had had a number of concerns raised as to political debate it feeds and other matters.

Deflection and dodging the question as usual. Put up or shut up on what is incorrect in the Migration Watch report. Sorry if the facts don't suit your narrative. But here's your chance to show your "concerns . . .as to the political debate it feeds" are justified - or not. 

 

On the question of the UN migrant pace, I am familiar with its contents - which gives me an advantage over most of the UK folk I speak to, most of whom  had no idea we were even  signed up to it. Publicity, in relative terms, has been minimal, other than on social media, as you would know if you did the research you gratuitously urge on others.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

The UK already has control over it's borders and the migrants who cross them.

 

This iniquitous financial requirement is nothing to do with the EU. 

Your idea of control and mine are obviously different.  

 

"Over one million illegal immigrants are in Britain."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4967690/Million-illegal-immigrants-no

 From that article

Quote

They include visa overstayers, criminals who have escaped deportation, failed asylum seekers and those who have sneaked into the UK.

What other type of illegal immigrant is there?

 

Despite what the Mail would have us believe, it is, of course, impossible to say with any accuracy how many illegal immigrants there are in the UK, or any other country come to that. The mere fact that they are illegal mans they are under the authorities radar and so uncounted.

 

I accept, though, that there are illegal immigrants in the UK, and by any estimation too many of them; indeed one could say that one is one too many!

 

But I was responding to your statement

4 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

will not end up negating UK's bid, via Brexit, to regain control of our borders and the migrants who cross them

which is why that is the part I quoted!

 

The EU has no control over the UK's borders except where the freedom of movement directive is concerned. It has no control over non EEA nationals migrating to the UK: unless they are the family member of an EEA national exercising a treaty right in the UK and so covered by the directive, not the UK's immigration rules.

 

Other than that, like all EU member states, the UK sets it's own immigration rules and the EU has absolutely zero say in those rules nor how they are applied.

 

Therefore the EU is completely irrelevant to this topic, which is about the UK's own family migration rules; which Brexit will not affect in any way, shape or form.

 

The EU is also completely irrelevant when it comes to the subject of illegal immigration to the UK. Brexit will not effect that in any way shape or form.

 

Except in the highly unlikely event that once we are out of the club France will no longer feel any compulsion to stop those tens of thousands camping around the channel ports and so put them all on the next available boats to Blighty!

[Krataiboy]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 From that article

What other type of illegal immigrant is there?

 

Despite what the Mail would have us believe, it is, of course, impossible to say with any accuracy how many illegal immigrants there are in the UK, or any other country come to that. The mere fact that they are illegal mans they are under the authorities radar and so uncounted.

 

I accept, though, that there are illegal immigrants in the UK, and by any estimation too many of them; indeed one could say that one is one too many!

 

But I was responding to your statement

which is why that is the part I quoted!

 

The EU has no control over the UK's borders except where the freedom of movement directive is concerned. It has no control over non EEA nationals migrating to the UK: unless they are the family member of an EEA national exercising a treaty right in the UK and so covered by the directive, not the UK's immigration rules.

 

Other than that, like all EU member states, the UK sets it's own immigration rules and the EU has absolutely zero say in those rules nor how they are applied.

 

Therefore the EU is completely irrelevant to this topic, which is about the UK's own family migration rules; which Brexit will not affect in any way, shape or form.

 

The EU is also completely irrelevant when it comes to the subject of illegal immigration to the UK. Brexit will not effect that in any way shape or form.

 

Except in the highly unlikely event that once we are out of the club France will no longer feel any compulsion to stop those tens of thousands camping around the channel ports and so put them all on the next available boats to Blighty!

I take your point re the EU freedom of movement directive. But we now risk jumping out of this frying pan into the fire of UN's toxic new migrant pact. 

[rasg]

6 hours ago, laislica said:

However, why can't I, as a British citizen, marry who I like, wherever they were born and, provided that I have enough financial resources, bring here to the UK to visit or live.
Why should she/he have to pass exams to prove she/he can speak/read/write English and pass an exam to show that she/he "has UK knowledge"?

I agree with you. We should. If a British citizen has been paying tax all their life I don't think they should have to pay for visa fees at all or they should get a huge discount.

 

Nothing wrong with language tests at all. It means that people should be able to take part in the community outside of their friends and family. It should include people from the EU too so that everybody can integrate. They might not want to but if they have the language skills at least its possible.

 

7 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Sorry, that's just not true. The facts, from a study commissioned by the British Government, show otherwise.

 

The study, published in September, 2018:

 

Quote

found EU citizens have little impact on UK workers’ wages, pay more in taxes, have no adverse impact on young Britons’ schooling, are not linked to increasing crime and contribute “much more” to the NHS than they consume.

 

Immigration myths blown apart by government-commissioned report

Do you really think the Government would commission a report without setting certain parameters so that they get the answers that they want to? If not, you are very naive.

 

I get why there is the NHS surcharge and £200 pa was a every good deal. Doubling it was a bit OTT, but I get it. My brother-in-law had a horrendous accident ten years back and a huge team of NHS surgeons spent months putting him back together again. Probably around £500k. If something like it happened to somebody who had just arrived in this country from outside the EEA, it would mean that many, many people would have to pay £200 or £400 a year to pay for one person who had paid little into the system.