UK statement to the house - net migration measures - did I hear right? Family visa financials doubled, NHS charge up 66%?

[MicroB]

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.

[MicroB]

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.

[MicroB]

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.

 

[Doctor Tom]

4 minutes ago, MicroB said:

Low paid work will still exist, its just that it won't be done by immigrants. 

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. 

[theblether]

30 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.

 

Incorrect. The minimum income requirement has been in place for years. The ECHR has not struck down the policy. Countries maintain the right to filter visa applications from non-EU nationals. 

 

Therefore your contention 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." is flat out wrong. 

 

There is no EU law that prevents countries from conducting immigration law for non-EU nationals. And there never will be as many European countries WILL NEVER AGREE to handing over the rights

[theblether]

1 hour ago, Doctor Tom said:

People will not be fooled when their local hospital can't find the staff to stay functional. 

 

The NHS is exempt. 

[MicroB]

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.

[MicroB]

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.

[proton]

They promised under a hundred thousand immigrants in 2010!

 

[Doctor Tom]

9 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

The NHS is exempt. 

All the Health Service Sector?  Care home staff? Home Helps? Cleaners? Cooks? 

[MangoKorat]

21 minutes ago, theblether said:

Incorrect. The minimum income requirement has been in place for years. The ECHR has not struck down the policy. Countries maintain the right to filter visa applications from non-EU nationals. 

It has, but it is now likely to be challenged further.

 

21 minutes ago, theblether said:

Therefore your contention 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." is flat out wrong. 

Then you need to keep up with UK politics.  Johnson wanted to change parliamentary law twice, once trying to help out another party member and then when he illegally prorogued parliament.

 

The Conservatives have been seeking to exit the ECHR since Theresa May was Home Secretary - because the ECHR have consistently ruled against their immigration policies.

 

Sunak is doing the same now with his Rwanda policy.  The Court of Appeal sent him a clear message that the Rwada policy was not only against ECHR rules but also falls foul of the UK's own Human Rights laws - yet he is as we speak, trying to implement a Rwanda Mk2 policy.  The court found clear evidence that Rwanda had mistreat asylum seekers sent their by other countries with similar policies - yet Sunak is claiming that his new treaty will sort that.  He is also trying to place his immigration policies outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

 

There is a clear ECHR and EU law that requires countries to provide protection to genuine aslylum seekers.

 

To clarify my position - I think many of the so called Asylum Seekers are in fact, economic migrants and something has to be done about them.  However, I cannot condone my country going against internationally agreed laws in order to do so.

 

If you don't think the Tories are slowly dismantling democracy - in addition to trying to go against the UK Court of Appeal's ruling, just look at the recent changes to the laws over protests and the the Tories attempts to take them further.

 

Just recently they wanted to ban a march against Israel's war in Gaza - even when the London Police Commissioner told them he had examined the law and there was no basis on which he could ban the march.

 

The policy seems to be, if a law gets in the way, change the law, not examine why it is in place! And that is why, they will never get my vote again.  One of the things we in the UK can be proud of is that the government is not above the law - how long that will survive under the Tories is anyone's guess.

Edited December 5, 2023 by MangoKorat

[Doctor Tom]

I once visited a McDonalds in a Food Court about 15 years ago.  The guy cleaning my table was an Iraqi legal visa equipped immigrant and a Iraqi trained and qualified Medical Doctor,  who was working the cleaning job while he got his English up to par to get his UK Medical Licence. Now he, and people like him, wouldn't get a look in with this new policy. 

[Denim]

' Net migration measures '

 

Says it all. Just a pathetic  hand wringing gesture to balance the books.

 

' Look at us. We are on top of things ! We have migration under control. '

 

Really , they just take it as a given that the electorate are dumber than themselves and believe all this panic driven hogwash.

 

Unable to control let alone stop illegal immigration they go for the soft option and make legal migration a lot more difficult.

 

Won't  save their sorry derrieres . They will be swept away like chaff at the next election and good riddance. 

[theblether]

29 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

It has, but it is now likely to be challenged further.

 

Then you need to keep up with UK politics.  Johnson wanted to change parliamentary law twice, once trying to help out another party member and then when he illegally prorogued parliament.

 

The Conservatives have been seeking to exit the ECHR since Theresa May was Home Secretary - because the ECHR have consistently ruled against their immigration policies.

 

Sunak is doing the same now with his Rwanda policy.  The Court of Appeal sent him a clear message that the Rwada policy was not only against ECHR rules but also falls foul of the UK's own Human Rights laws - yet he is as we speak, trying to implement a Rwanda Mk2 policy.  The court found clear evidence that Rwanda had mistreat asylum seekers sent their by other countries with similar policies - yet Sunak is claiming that his new treaty will sort that.  He is also trying to place his immigration policies outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

 

There is a clear ECHR and EU law that requires countries to provide protection to genuine aslylum seekers.

 

To clarify my position - I think many of the so called Asylum Seekers are in fact, economic migrants and something has to be done about them.  However, I cannot condone my country going against internationally agreed laws in order to do so.

 

If you don't think the Tories are slowly dismantling democracy - in addition to trying to go against the UK Court of Appeal's ruling, just look at the recent changes to the laws over protests and the the Tories attempts to take them further.

 

Just recently they wanted to ban a march against Israel's war in Gaza - even when the London Police Commissioner told them he had examined the law and there was no basis on which he could ban the march.

 

The policy seems to be, if a law gets in the way, change the law, not examine why it is in place! And that is why, they will never get my vote again.  One of the things we in the UK can be proud of is that the government is not above the law - how long that will survive under the Tories is anyone's guess.

 

I am up to date with UK politics. I'm also sticking to the topic, not ancient history

[Toby1947]

18 hours ago, UKresonant said:

The family visa financials will cause real problems for many I think. 

 

Edit  >£112k (circa 5 million THB) from £62.5k cash savings method if it's a similar calc. to before, ouch!

Peanuts 🥜

[MangoKorat]

1 minute ago, theblether said:

 

I am up to date with UK politics. I'm also sticking to the topic, not ancient history

Its not ancient history, its part of an overall trend - If the law prevents our policies, we will change the law.

 

The income requirement is both discriminationary and, I believe, against Human Rights laws.  The UK government has for years, demanded that those bringing a spouse in to the country must earn far more than the minimum benefit levels. Those are supposed to be the minimum amounts people require to live on. What justification is there then, to require someone bringing a spouse to the UK to earn so much?  It also discriminates on age by being far higher that the minimum state pension?  Since when has the government had the right to place an age limit on marrying a non British citizen - which in effect is what they are doing?

[theblether]

11 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Its not ancient history, its part of an overall trend - If the law prevents our policies, we will change the law.

 

The income requirement is both discriminationary and, I believe, against Human Rights laws.  The UK government has for years, demanded that those bringing a spouse in to the country must earn far more than the minimum benefit levels. Those are supposed to be the minimum amounts people require to live on. What justification is there then, to require someone bringing a spouse to the UK to earn so much?  It also discriminates on age by being far higher that the minimum state pension?  Since when has the government had the right to place an age limit on marrying a non British citizen - which in effect is what they are doing?

 

Once again, you are wrong. The minimum income policy has been in place for years and has not been overturned by any court. 

[theblether]

Here's a question, which applied to a lady I used to date. 

 

Should it be legal for a sixteen year old British Muslim girl to marry a non-EU national with zero income? 

 

As we have people so certain of their legal opinions on this forum, be aware that this was decided at the UK Supreme Court. 

 

Over to you. 

Edited December 5, 2023 by theblether

[UKresonant]

1 hour ago, Toby1947 said:

Peanuts 🥜

Cashew nuts!

It would be to the Wife, but I would need a little Job if I was the sole sponsor, could of met it if they had just indexed by CPI. Many will have complications I would anticipate.

It will cause a lot of problems, perhaps a main sponsor will now have to leave, and work for 6 months before applying for the visa, and such like.

[MarkyM3]

750k net migration in 2022, 10 million population increase since the Millenium. The country is bursting at the seams but you may not have noticed if you live in Thailand. How is that supposed to be sustainable?

 

As for salary requirements, £38k is hardly a huge salary in the UK these days. Minimum wage is approaching £25k annualised. For a Family Visa with a pensioner and spouse income combined, surely that £38k figure should be achievable if the spouse is able to secure a job, even at minimum wage. 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by MarkyM3

[MangoKorat]

2 hours ago, theblether said:

Once again, you are wrong. The minimum income policy has been in place for years and has not been overturned by any court. 

I haven't been wrong at all - where have I said the minimum income requirement has been overturned by a court?  Where please?

[MangoKorat]

33 minutes ago, MarkyM3 said:

if the spouse is able to secure a job, even at minimum wage. 

Unless things have changed - the spouses income cannot be included until the second visa. There didn't used to be any allowance given for a 'promise of a job'.

[theblether]

33 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

I haven't been wrong at all - where have I said the minimum income requirement has been overturned by a court?  Where please?

 

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. 

[MangoKorat]

1 hour 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. 

There has been a material change - in that the amount has changed, therefore the latest change, if implemented can be challenged.

 

The Supreme court does not supercede the ECHR so what's your point over the 2017 decision?

 

I note you fail to show where I said the minimum income requirement has been overturned by a court.  That a challenge is now possible - leaves it open to being denied. That is all I have said.  It is my belief that many of the current government's policies and those of past governments are in fact illegal.  However, the courts will decide that, not you or I.

 

Was I to challenge the minimum income requirement my first port of call would be the UK courts and not entirely on human rights issues.  The basis of my challenge would be because the amount required discriminates against those on the minimimum wage or pension.  I know of no other law in the land that allows the UK government to determine who someone can legally marry and have live with them based on their income. That is just plain wrong.

 

Its quite clear where your thinking comes from and its certainly not based on compassion. With that in mind, we must accept that our opinions are different but don't tell me I am wrong when I'm not and/or all you have to go on is past decisions.

 

The principle of a past decision can be challenged where there is a material change and/or the challenge is covered by a different rule/directive. That applies to both the UK courts the ECHR and the ECJ.

 

Theresa May thought she could go against legal advice given to the government over the deportation of foreign criminals with families and lost several cases - that formed her basis for trying to leave the jurisdiction of the ECHR. She completely dismissed the reason the UK signed up to the ECHR in the first place.

 

In the UK if you lose a court case, in most cases you have a recourse to a further level of justice that will examine the findings of the lower court and either find with them or against them. However, what do you do when you know have been unfairly treated by even the highest court in the land? The fact that a case has been decided by the UK's Supreme Court does not guarantee that such a decision is correct and in some cases, courts accepts that their 'hands are tied'.  In many cases you can go to either the ECHR or the ECJ.

 

As someone who has been through that procedure I can tell you that this higher tier is a very necessary component of an individual's right to justice.  Should we lose it, the injustices of government's like the current one will no doubt rise dramatically.  I won my case without having to go to the ECJ. I won't go into detail other than to state that I was being prosecuted by the CPS in a matter that had been created out of a totally unjust 'Case Law'. A 'Case Law' described by most lawyers as one of the most draconian ever implemented.

 

I threatened the CPS with the ECJ if I lost and that was enough for their lawyers to advise them that they would lose at the ECJ (factual, I know the KC).  Not wanting to lose their 'Case Law', the CPS craftily backed down and dropped the charges. I would have been happy to take it all the way and in doing so, overturn their 'Case Law' but with charges dropped, I was unable to do so. I am sure that many people will have been sucessfully prosecuted using the same 'Case Law' since then - that doesn't make it right.

 

I sincerely hope that someone does challenge the requirements for a UK spouse visa now - its got completely out of hand. Especially when considered against the politically decided 'helping hand' given to BN (O) passport holders from Hong Kong.

 

However, the days of this Conservative government are almost certainly numbered. Some of their current policies won't be passed now and others will probably be overturned by a new, non Conservative government.

Edited December 5, 2023 by MangoKorat

[GinBoy2]

16 hours ago, generealty said:

What about Brits married to foreign nationals ? This is going to affect many who worked overseas and want to retire back in blighty. I for one will not be able to bring my wife back-so looks like retirement and old age alone.

Well I'm American, so doesn't affect me, but while cruising the BBC I came across this, and it seem that the income requirements does apply to British nationals trying to bring in foreign spouses.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67630258

[UKresonant]

10 hours ago, Denim said:

' Net migration measures '

 

Says it all. Just a pathetic  hand wringing gesture to balance the books.

 

' Look at us. We are on top of things ! We have migration under control. '

 

Really , they just take it as a given that the electorate are dumber than themselves and believe all this panic driven hogwash.

 

Unable to control let alone stop illegal immigration they go for the soft option and make legal migration a lot more difficult.

 

Won't  save their sorry derrieres . They will be swept away like chaff at the next election and good riddance. 

Exactly, no control of boarders, no analysis of housing capacity at affordable levels for the net increase in population, no, for example, scaling of health resources to match. It's being going on for years.

 

Also generalisation of illegal route immigrants /refugees, like they were all template clones. Perhaps if there applications are accepted, they are made safe and can work, the cost of rescue in the channel (if applicable), and the legal route fees such as Visa, NHS-sc, should be logged against them similar to the Student Loan system, repaying once over an income threshold.

 

The fact that they have went for a substantially over index increase for the family visa financials is another  attempted distraction from the core problem of their inept coordination, planning and resourcing on the subject, in some aspects zero effort, sometime closing their eyes whilst pushing the problem on to local authorities.  The governments lack of capability and talent is too frequently quite embarrassing.  

 

From another aspect they keep saying they are a unionist party, but keep giving the Nationalist  parties something to highlight, such as  in many regions median earnings are lower than the threshold set,  compared to London which is substantially over. Much easier to be approved in London on average (though no more a demonstration of affordability), whilst in the different regions you must be above average. Many I suspect, will be settling  in the region they consider home and perhaps with family initially.  Another example of London Centric thinking will be claimed.

 

e.g. https://www.statista.com/statistics/416139/full-time-annual-salary-in-the-uk-by-region/

Edited December 6, 2023 by UKresonant

[MicroB]

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.

,

[Will B Good]

22 hours ago, keithcresswell said:

I resent having to pay the NHS fee. My wife is working full time in the UK and paying National Insurance.  To me it seems that we're are paying twice for using the legal route.

Agree....all my kids have married people from abroad.....Belize, France, America, Bangladesh......all work in high level professional occupations.....all pay NI and income tax.....and three of them the NHS surcharge.....**** THE TORIES

[Nick Carter icp]

8 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

Agree....all my kids have married people from abroad.....Belize, France, America, Bangladesh......all work in high level professional occupations.....all pay NI and income tax.....and three of them the NHS surcharge.....**** THE TORIES

 

  What happened to the one that married a Bangladeshi ?

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  What happened to the one that married a Bangladeshi ?

It's the French guy that doesn't have to pay.