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

[herfiehandbag]

18 hours ago, Doctor Tom said:

This is just one more, of many, examples that the Tories just don't get it.  People are not upset about legal immigration, to employment that adds to the UK economy, and in the case of the Heath service, keeps it functioning.  A fully trained Nurse from say the Philippines, probably can't now make the cut.  And yet, the real problem of illegal immigration that the government over funds with benefits, goes on, unchecked.  They are too incompetent to be in Power. 

Yes absolutely. Legal immigration always has been able to be managed, and there is a valid debate about how strict the controls applied should be.

 

Illegal immigration is effectively unchecked. The staggering incompetence of those supposedly in charge of preventing it, plus the deliberate blocking by parts of the judicial and Civil Services of attempts to curb it, following their own agendas, mean that once the illegal immigrant, without any documentation, sets foot on UK soil then they are effectively free to go.  

 

We used to joke in the army that the new rifle introduced in the 1990s (SA80) should have been named for the Civil Service - because it didn't work and couldn't be fired!

 

Don't even mention the "working from home scam!

Edited December 6, 2023 by herfiehandbag

[Doctor Tom]

6 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

We used to joke in the army that the new rifle introduced in the 1990s (SA80) should have been named for the Civil Service - because it didn't work and couldn't be fired!

Yes, and I give this as another old joke about the SA80, not a personal comment:

' this heap of <deleted> is just like a woman, you never know what you're going to get, help, or crapped on'  

[brewsterbudgen]

Still no confirmation about whether the savings requirement is being similarly increased (currently £62,500).

[connda]

On 12/5/2023 at 12:30 PM, shunter said:

Meanwhile there are no restriction's on the jetsam and flotsam washing up on the UK beaches etc. and being housed, fed, and financed by the taxpayer, Yet those who were born in the UK irrespective of ethnic origin are discriminated against.

I'm one of those who believes that if you can't beat them, join them.

My suggestion for those in the West who wish to 'take their wives home' would be to divorce them, finance your girl-friend's "migration" through the porous borders, hook up with an immigration attorney on the other side and go through all the ropes to get them admitted permanently, then remarry.

[superal]

10 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Still no confirmation about whether the savings requirement is being similarly increased (currently £62,500).

From the Lexology online page ,   https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f41dda08-b756-4e9b-9d56-024fe7751e02

Currently, to rely solely on savings, applicants or their sponsors must be able to evidence holding the continuous sum of £62,500 for a period of 6 months in their bank account prior to the application submission. However, as the threshold has increased by over 100%, this figure is likely to be £112,750 which must be held for a continuous period of six months prior to submission of the application. This is an extremely unreasonable amount to expect applicants or their sponsors to have, to evidence for the financial requirement of a Spouse Visa.

[brewsterbudgen]

2 hours ago, superal said:

From the Lexology online page ,   https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f41dda08-b756-4e9b-9d56-024fe7751e02

Currently, to rely solely on savings, applicants or their sponsors must be able to evidence holding the continuous sum of £62,500 for a period of 6 months in their bank account prior to the application submission. However, as the threshold has increased by over 100%, this figure is likely to be £112,750 which must be held for a continuous period of six months prior to submission of the application. This is an extremely unreasonable amount to expect applicants or their sponsors to have, to evidence for the financial requirement of a Spouse Visa.

 

"Likely to be".  Hopefully, this is just a sop to the Brexit/Right-wing Tories before the election, and won' actually be introduced in time.  Of course, Starmer and Labour won't go ahead with this.....will they?

[herfiehandbag]

42 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

"Likely to be".  Hopefully, this is just a sop to the Brexit/Right-wing Tories before the election, and won' actually be introduced in time.  Of course, Starmer and Labour won't go ahead with this.....will they?

I rather imagine that it will be stalled or blocked before the election, and abandoned afterwards.

 

 

[RHCP]

I've just read on another immigration forum a quote from No. 10 saying that these new requirements will also apply to renewals as well, once implemented next Spring. Obviously not good news for those at the FLR and ILR stages.

[theoldgit]

39 minutes ago, RHCP said:

I've just read on another immigration forum a quote from No. 10 saying that these new requirements will also apply to renewals as well, once implemented next Spring. Obviously not good news for those at the FLR and ILR stages.

Yes and that’s what the media are reporting, we need to keep in mind that whilst the new figures are more than the average wage in the UK, for FLR and ILR applications both the applicants and sponsors salaries can be combined to meet the threshold, along with any savings they may have.

 

I suspect most couples will make the cut, but sadly not all.

[beautifulthailand99]

On 12/5/2023 at 1:46 PM, superal said:

UK indigenous folks and pensioners should be exempt from the new rules . A married couple are expected to live on about 15K a year state pension and a single person about  10K. UK state pensions need to double at least . The reforms will reduce the net migration figures by as much as 50% and lessen the burden on the NHS , housing and benefits system . Also the UK Immigration should be upgrading their detection methods on finding illegal immigrants , many of whom are milking the benefits system on a large scale and are disguised as asylum seekers . UK crime rates on car theft and shop lifting have rocketed recently . Correlation with high immigration / crime ? Not to forget trying to get a doctor or dentist appointment or 10 hour waiting at the A& E . People living rough on the streets at a record level and 20% of people using food banks . 

No doubt there will be protest marches , against the immigration reforms , led by so called do gooders e.g. Stop the Oil campaigners . The UK has gone from bad to worse and needs these radical reforms to halt the slide .

I knew a jobbing builder who spent a lot of time in Thailand, he worked for cash for most of his life and was on the sick for a bad back and depression and had done a spell at Her Majesty's Pleasure. He had a council flat in an outer suburb of London and was on pension benefit so his flat was paid for and had pretty much a full pension and still did odd jobs for cash. Was as white as you like and racist to his bone and spent 3 months whoring in Thailand whilst being the tightest person it was ever my displeasure to meet.

[malthebluff]

So now the financial requirement will be 38k BUT if you are a carer for a disabled person or on any other benefits then you already meet this requirement and dont need to show it. But carers allowance is only around 11k a year with maybe another 5k in other benefits so the maths dont add up. UK man with a disabled child and a thai wife thats 3 mouths to feed and their only income is around 16k, a UK working man with thai wife must earn 38k and only 2 mouths to feed. As for housing shortage you have to prove you have a place to live before they give you a visa so this cant be put forward as an argument, as the NHS  I agree with the fees but only if it applied to everyone, as asylum seekers dont pay this they also dont pay Visa fees of 2k and refugees change their status to asylum seekers to avoid it, I worked in housing and there used to be 5% of available housing kept empty for the purpose of giving asylum seekers  a place to live and with free rent but that 5%  was never enough now they are put  in hotels abd given food allowance of £29 a week The uk as gone now 

[theblether]

12 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

 

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.

,

 

The Dutch issue was moot, the concept of a minimum income requirement was accepted unanimously. If there was no minimum income then ( at that time ) sixteen year old school kids could have married a foreign spouse and brought them to the country without any method to financially provide for them. 

 

That was absurd, and no sane person reading this thread believes that there should not be a minimum income. Neither do the courts. 

[theblether]

21 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

The Dutch issue was moot, the concept of a minimum income requirement was accepted unanimously. If there was no minimum income then ( at that time ) sixteen year old school kids could have married a foreign spouse and brought them to the country without any method to financially provide for them. 

 

That was absurd, and no sane person reading this thread believes that there should not be a minimum income. Neither do the courts. 

 

To clarify, at one time - not at that time, as by 2017  the £18,600 limit was in place

[globalThailand]

3 hours ago, theoldgit said:

Yes and that’s what the media are reporting, we need to keep in mind that whilst the new figures are more than the average wage in the UK, for FLR and ILR applications both the applicants and sponsors salaries can be combined to meet the threshold, along with any savings they may have.

 

I suspect most couples will make the cut, but sadly not all.

 

I fear great number of people will be on one salary as their partner looks after kids and miss the cut.  I'm somewhat surprised the 18600 didn't have any increases since it was introduced but this jump is astronomical!  Sad day for the UK

[MicroB]

5 hours ago, globalThailand said:

 

I fear great number of people will be on one salary as their partner looks after kids and miss the cut.  I'm somewhat surprised the 18600 didn't have any increases since it was introduced but this jump is astronomical!  Sad day for the UK

Home Secretary May accepted the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee in 2012, which set the £18,600 threshold based on benefits limits

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/radical-immigration-changes-to-reform-family-visas

 

Quote

The income threshold of £18,600 is based on advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), and is calculated as the level at which a couple generally ceases to be able to access income-related benefits.

 

 

MAC suggested upto £25,700, to cover all costs of public services such as healthcare. The government went for the lower and the NHS surcharge;

 

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/the-minimum-income-requirement-for-non-eea-family-members-in-the-uk-2/

 

 

 

In 2023, the threshold for benefits has not increased to £38,700. In fact, its not changed at all. If they used inflation, it would have been about £25,000.

 

https://www.gov.uk/working-tax-credit

 

The government has literally moved the goalposts. The previous principle has been tossed out in favor of an income threshold that is quite a comfortable level. But this is a Home Secretary who doesn't have much concept of what ordinary people earn or live like, given his foul mouthed description of Stockton.

 

[MicroB]

6 hours ago, theblether said:

 

To clarify, at one time - not at that time, as by 2017  the £18,600 limit was in place

 

The recommendation for £18,600 was made in 2011 by MAC, based on an analysis of housing benefits and tax credits.  It had not been increased, as you iply, from some lower number to £18,600 by 2017. There was in fact some judicial challenges to it.

 

If you believe in principles, then the same principle used in 2012  should be used in 2023; the threshold for access to benefits. The government is not particularly concerned in British man and Thai wife living a nice life in the UK, they are only concerned if they are a burden to the State. If you earn more than £18,600, and are in good health and no children, you are not a burden to the State.

 

The Home Secretary has literally set the new threshold based on the income of certain specific jobs. If your job isn't on this list, its unlikely you can bring a foreign wife home

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skilled-worker-visa-eligible-occupations/skilled-worker-visa-eligible-occupations-and-codes

 

Unskilled occupations might include working in a pub, working on an assembly line, sailors, porters, janitors, caretakers, book keepers, taxi drivers, fork lift operators.

 

Basically, the Home Secretary seems to think that if you are in one of these sort of jobs, unless you put your wife on the game, getting married will probably leave you destitute. How can anyone outside of Stockton even exist of £38,600?? His brain probably boggles.

 

No its some fiugure he's asked a SPaD to come up with so he can close the door on those no good foreign wives, who will probably self deport themselves, plus those young postgrads employed by various London City finance firms on £28k a year. Easy wins. The higher the threshold the larger the pool of people who are more likely to be compliant and cheap to deal with.

[MicroB]

6 hours ago, theblether said:

 

The Dutch issue was moot, the concept of a minimum income requirement was accepted unanimously. If there was no minimum income then ( at that time ) sixteen year old school kids could have married a foreign spouse and brought them to the country without any method to financially provide for them. 

 

That was absurd, and no sane person reading this thread believes that there should not be a minimum income. Neither do the courts. 

 

That's not what the decision said.

 

I don't disagree with a requirement for a minimum income. I disagree with your understanding of a Dutch case from 2007, and I disagree with your belief that this is the end of the matter, and I disagree with your attempts to shut down debate through strawman argument.

 

No doubt you have considered in detail the remarks of a British judge, Justice Blake, President of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, on a specific related matter, and understand that there is a range of opinion of judges, and its not cut and dry as you suppose and try to present.

 

Of course, as you are aware, his judgment was struck down by Lord Justice Aikens with the following remarks

 

Quote

Individuals will have different views on what constitutes the minimum income requirements needed to accomplish the stated policy terms.......In my judgment, it is not the court’s job to impose its own view unless, objectively judged, the levels chosen are to be characterized as irrational, or inherently unjust or inherently unfair.

 

 

The Home Secretary's reasoning for the new limit appears irrational (using an income level that is used to protect British jobs, not to provide a certain level of lifestyle), unjust (its not morally right to threaten people legally in the country with deportation because their partner can't get a payrise) and is unfair (unfair to pensioners for a start). The government will claim its about protecting British jobs and British society, but this detail reveals that they also don't want foreigners in the UK (by targeting wives) by imposing punitive income requirements. It doesn't affect me, as I am very financially comfortable, but I see the policy for what it is.

[Tony M]

Here's a possibly interesting snippet :

 

According to the Office for National Statistics, in 2022, 60% of UK civil servants earned less than 38,000 GBP per year.

 

I would guess that a large number of those civil servants work in the area of immigration. How "annoying" to learn that you, yourself, possibly don't earn enough to bring a foreign spouse to the UK to join you

[superal]

14 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I knew a jobbing builder who spent a lot of time in Thailand, he worked for cash for most of his life and was on the sick for a bad back and depression and had done a spell at Her Majesty's Pleasure. He had a council flat in an outer suburb of London and was on pension benefit so his flat was paid for and had pretty much a full pension and still did odd jobs for cash. Was as white as you like and racist to his bone and spent 3 months whoring in Thailand whilst being the tightest person it was ever my displeasure to meet.

His type are a dying breed with working for " cash in the hand " almost disappearing . Also racism is not just a Caucasian malady . 

[superal]

16 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

I rather imagine that it will be stalled or blocked before the election, and abandoned afterwards.

 

 

Stalled  and amended I hope . Abandoned ? no but modified to eliminate discrimination against indigenous retirees or on  low incomes . About time the UK gov; started taking care of its own people first .

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, superal said:

Stalled  and amended I hope . Abandoned ? no but modified to eliminate discrimination against indigenous retirees or on  low incomes . About time the UK gov; started taking care of its own people first .

If Labour (as looks possible) win the next election then it will be abandoned - the voice of the immigrant vote will see to that.

 

If the Tories (as looks unlikely) win the next election then a combination of infighting within their dysfunctional Parliamentary Party, and opposition from within the "establishment", referred to by some as "the blob", will, as with Brexit, hamstring it.

[MicroB]

9 hours ago, superal said:

Stalled  and amended I hope . Abandoned ? no but modified to eliminate discrimination against indigenous retirees or on  low incomes . About time the UK gov; started taking care of its own people first .

 

What's an "indigenous retiree". The dictionary would define indigenous peoples as the earliest known inhabitants of an area and their descendants. Which for the British Isles basically means Celts, because the Anglo-Saxons are basically descendants of invaders (the name is the hint).

 

But maybe you include descendants of Celts, Picts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, descendants of Spanish and Portuguese jews who form part of the oldest Jewish community in the UK, perhaps you include the Hugenots (French Protestants), Russian Jews and other people who settled in the UK. Will you include the descendants of the 200,000 Poles who settled in the UK during the 40s and 50s. Are you including Irish people who came to the UK after 1921? The Wind Rush generation. People from India and Pakistan who arrived in the 1950s, 60s, 70s. Does "indigenous" include only those who were British Citizens when born, or are you including those who were considered British Subjects when born?

 

Consider Abdul. He was born in 1947, in Lahore. He joined his father in 1957. His father, Imran, came a few year earlier. and got a job as a bus driver, because Britain was short of drivers post WW2. Abdul was born a British subject, and became a British citizen. He eventually married in the UK, maybe his parents had a hand in deciding who he should marry. They never had children. His wife passed away in 2020, after 50 years of marriage. Abdul pines for her and he doesn't want to die alone. His childhood sweetheart in Lahore is also a widow. They want to marry, and spend their remaining days together. He has a modest pension of £25,000; a combination of a full State Pension, and a small company pension from his days working at the factory. Its enough. He doesn't have many needs. His house is brought and paid for, and he doesn't drive. His wife to be has no assets to speak of. She can't come to the UK, and there is no prospect of her gaining employment here.

 

Is he an "indigenous retiree"? Or should he go back to Lahore?

[Bday Prang]

The figure of  £38,000 seems fine to me when bearing in mind the obscene cost of living in the UK.  

44 minutes ago, MicroB said:

Consider Abdul. He was born in 1947, in Lahore. He joined his father in 1957. His father, Imran, came a few year earlier. and got a job as a bus driver, because Britain was short of drivers post WW2. Abdul was born a British subject, and became a British citizen. He eventually married in the UK, maybe his parents had a hand in deciding who he should marry. They never had children. His wife passed away in 2020, after 50 years of marriage. Abdul pines for her and he doesn't want to die alone. His childhood sweetheart in Lahore is also a widow. They want to marry, and spend their remaining days together. He has a modest pension of £25,000; a combination of a full State Pension, and a small company pension from his days working at the factory. Its enough. He doesn't have many needs. His house is brought and paid for, and he doesn't drive. His wife to be has no assets to speak of. She can't come to the UK, and there is no prospect of her gaining employment here.

 

Is he an "indigenous retiree"? Or should he go back to Lahore?

If I was Abdul I would sell my house and be on the 1st flight back,  and enjoy what little time I have remaining, with my childhood sweetheart, £25,000 a year does not go very far in the  Uk. Don't forget half of ot will be taxed at 20%  and don't forget his poll tax.  His money will go a lot further in Pakistan

[Bday Prang]

On 12/6/2023 at 6:22 PM, beautifulthailand99 said:

I knew a jobbing builder who spent a lot of time in Thailand, he worked for cash for most of his life and was on the sick for a bad back and depression and had done a spell at Her Majesty's Pleasure. He had a council flat in an outer suburb of London and was on pension benefit so his flat was paid for and had pretty much a full pension and still did odd jobs for cash. Was as white as you like and racist to his bone and spent 3 months whoring in Thailand whilst being the tightest person it was ever my displeasure to meet.

Sounds like a top guy to me, what's your problem?  

[theoldgit]

12 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

The figure of  £38,000 seems fine to me when bearing in mind the obscene cost of living in the UK.  

It might seem fine to you but it might not seem fine to the Brit who owns his own home, has a reasonable pension of say £25k, his circumstances have changed and he finds himself on his own.

During has travels he meets and finds happiness with a foreign national, he wouldn’t be able to live with in his home, despite the fact they could live reasonably comfortable and be no burden on the State.

[MicroB]

20 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

The figure of  £38,000 seems fine to me when bearing in mind the obscene cost of living in the UK.

 

Thats not the reasoning given by the Home Secretary.

[Bday Prang]

1 minute ago, MicroB said:

 

Thats not the reasoning given by the Home Secretary.

I don't really care what reasons were given by the home secretary, the fact of the matter is that the Uk is not a cheap place to live, 

[MicroB]

11 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

It might seem fine to you but it might not seem fine to the Brit who owns his own home, has a reasonable pension of say £25k, his circumstances have changed and he finds himself on his own.

During has travels he meets and finds happiness with a foreign national, he wouldn’t be able to live with in his home, despite the fact they could live reasonably comfortable and be no burden on the State.

 

Indeed. The original principle wasn't about whether a couple could live comfortably on £18,600 but whether they would have any recourse to public funds.

 

The major objection from the anti-immigrant lobby is cost and resources; immigrants cost too much and demand too much. If immigrants are neither, whats the remaining objection? We're circling around an elephant in the room.

 

 

[MicroB]

6 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

I don't really care what reasons were given by the home secretary, the fact of the matter is that the Uk is not a cheap place to live, 

 

Much cheaper that some other parts of Europe. Anyhow, is it any of your business whether the proverbial Abdul buys Lidl or Heinz baked beans. £25k is more than enough to live in the UK. According to the government's own reasoning, you only need £18,600 as a couple to live.

 

The Home Secretary's reasoning is important, because at some point he and his department will be really scrutinized in some expensive case as to how on earth can they justify their numbers. In reality, he is conflating wives with immigrant workers, and getting mixed up in his own rhetoric, and he's hardly brain of Britain given his distinct lack of legal training while in the job of being in charge of, essentially, the police.

 

I surmise that his department will respond along the lines of he needs a number that will reduce foreign wives by 95%, and we responded to the boss. The department has released their modeling data, and indicates that they expect this to reduce family visas by tens of thousands each year. There are only 30,000 partner visas granted a year.

Edited December 7, 2023 by MicroB

[Bday Prang]

15 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

It might seem fine to you but it might not seem fine to the Brit who owns his own home, has a reasonable pension of say £25k, his circumstances have changed and he finds himself on his own.

During has travels he meets and finds happiness with a foreign national, he wouldn’t be able to live with in his home, despite the fact they could live reasonably comfortable and be no burden on the State.

 Life is not fair , There are always  regulations to be complied with,   those who want to live here need to meet certain financial requirements and

I doubt very much there are many Thais out there on a similar forum crying on behalf of foreigners who don't meet the financial requirements to live here.   

In the scenario that I commented on, the guy in question was born in 1947, he is nearly 80 years old, and we can assume his "childhood sweetheart" is of a similar age, it would be astonishing if they both did not become an elderly burden on the state very soon. He may well have contributed to the Uk's crumbling health system but his childhood Pakistani sweetheart, like many wannabe immigrants, has not