Substantial increase in income requirements for UK Visas.

[theoldgit]

The Uk Government has announced that the salary levels for visas for skilled workers has risen to £38,700, from  little over £26,000.

 

The BBC have added that the salary levels for Family Visas will require the same income level, it’s currently £18,600, to “ensure people can only bring dependents they can support financially “.

 

Its not clear if the increase in income requirements include those returning to the UK with their spouses, but the BBC are indeed quoting an increase of £20,000, so it would seem so.

 

I’m not aware of any policy papers yet, just the report from the BBC.

 

 

[blackcab]

I added youtube videos of the Home Secretary making his statement here:

 

 

[theoldgit]

It’s probably worth noting that the NHS Surcharge is still payable by those settling or coming to work in the UK and are making National Insurance and paying Income Tax in addition.

 

it’s basically an “immigration Tax” which will be popular with Daily Mail readers.

[brewsterbudgen]

Any word (if it's true that Settlement visas are affected, not just 'skilled work visas') on whether the savings requirement is also increasing (currently £62,500)?

[jimn]

Whilst I understand the requirement to limit migration, this is a step too far. Whilst I have no plans to live permanently back in the UK, I would possibly wish to do so in the future with my Thai wife. At the moment a 10 year visa meets our needs for our yearly 4 month visit. But if in the future I want to bring my wife of 9 years back to the UK with me I cannot because my income is about £33,000. Absolute nonsense. Its being proposed to stop immigrants bringing family into the UK but it has a knock on effect to us born and bred in the UK.

[HauptmannUK]

The £18600 threshold was set many years ago and high inflation over the past few years means that a couple would be living in poverty on that income. It obviously needed increasing, but perhaps not to over £38k. 

[HauptmannUK]

8 hours ago, theoldgit said:

 

 

it’s basically an “immigration Tax” which will be popular with Daily Mail readers.

It will also be popular with low and averagely paid workers in the UK who have for years been undercut by immigrant workers.

[superal]

1 hour ago, HauptmannUK said:

The £18600 threshold was set many years ago and high inflation over the past few years means that a couple would be living in poverty on that income. It obviously needed increasing, but perhaps not to over £38k. 

There are many UK state pensioners who would be happy to have £18600 as an annual income . The £38k. should not be applied to an indigenous UK national and foreign spouse . Just another indicator of how low the UK pension is . The governments radical reforms of limiting immigration are welcome . Next week announcement is free flights to Rwanda .

[Will B Good]

70% of the UK population earn less than this.................**** the Tories

[theoldgit]

7 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Any word (if it's true that Settlement visas are affected, not just 'skilled work visas') on whether the savings requirement is also increasing (currently £62,500)?

The UK media, BBC, Telegraph and Mail at least, are specifically reporting that it will apply to Family/Settlement applications from March next, what isn’t clear yet is whether the new figure would apply for those, already in the UK and would be applying for FLR and ILR after the increase, though of course if the applicant is in employment, their salaries can be included in the to meet the figure.

i don’t think that an increase was unexpected or unreasonable, but this is a massive increase and is in excess of the average wage in the UK, £32,750 as reported by the ONS.

I the savings figure hasn’t been clarified yet, but no doubt it will be increased.

[theoldgit]

4 hours ago, HauptmannUK said:

It will also be popular with low and averagely paid workers in the UK who have for years been undercut by immigrant workers.

My “immigrant tax” comment was really directed at the NHS Surcharge which is still paid by those who are in employment and liable for income tax and NI in their own right.

You are of course correct in saying that the measures may well be popular with the low and averagely paid workers in the UK, though it’s worth remembering that the lower requirements were brought in because many UK residents were not interested in this type of work. 

[Jenkins9039]

Stupid rule.

 

1= Let people flood the country from boats.

2= make it impossible for Brits to marry 'below their station?' Thais and bring them home and produce kids, which is not happening in the UK.

[MarkyM3]

Median salary in UK is just under £35k. If you are doing a Family Visa then surely a retiree + spouse earnings should be able to meet the new qualifying figure of £38k with comfort? Bear in mind a FT minimum wage job is not far off £25k annualised.

 

The UK has had a population increase of 10 million in the last 20 years, it's not sustainable. The net figure of 750k in 2022 has finally triggered some action but it's way too late in any case. 

 

No one asked for the boat people either and they are a fraction of the net migration figure. They aren't wanted here but France is keen to get rid as we all know and the government hasn't got a solution, the courts have overturned any solution thus far. 

Edited December 5, 2023 by MarkyM3

[theoldgit]

14 minutes ago, MarkyM3 said:

Median salary in UK is just under £35k. If you are doing a Family Visa then surely a retiree + spouse earnings should be able to meet the new qualifying figure of £38k with comfort? Bear in mind a FT minimum wage job is not far off £25k annualised.

Only the salary/income/capital of the UK spouse/sponsor can be used for the initial application, for subsequent applications, at the FLR and ILR stages, the applicants income can be used to meet the financial requirement.

[superal]

11 hours ago, theoldgit said:

Only the salary/income/capital of the UK spouse/sponsor can be used for the initial application, for subsequent applications, at the FLR and ILR stages, the applicants income can be used to meet the financial requirement.

Assumption is that to meet the new rules a UK returning retiree sponsor would have to show proof of pension / income / taxes paid etc . Therefore any non retired new applicants can only show a letter of a job offer and salary offered ? Would the applicant have to keep that job indefinitely to comply with the new rules ? Would the loss of employment or change of job to a lower salary mean deportation ? If a retiree died after only a short amount of time after returning to the UK , would that mean his lady would have to leave the UK ? 

So many ifs & buts and I can see complications arising and possibly fraud and fake applications . However the burden on the benefits system would be lightened as the applicant will be in receipt of reasonable wages . 

I can envisage amendments when the bill is debated in the house of commons / lords .

[theoldgit]

5 hours ago, superal said:

Assumption is that to meet the new rules a UK returning retiree sponsor would have to show proof of pension / income / taxes paid etc . Therefore any non retired new applicants can only show a letter of a job offer and salary offered ? Would the applicant have to keep that job indefinitely to comply with the new rules ? Would the loss of employment or change of job to a lower salary mean deportation ? If a retiree died after only a short amount of time after returning to the UK , would that mean his lady would have to leave the UK ? 

So many ifs & buts and I can see complications arising and possibly fraud and fake applications . However the burden on the benefits system would be lightened as the applicant will be in receipt of reasonable wages . 

I can envisage amendments when the bill is debated in the house of commons / lords .

We’ll have to wait until the new plan is published, but currently the figure has to be met on initial application, and again at the FLR and ILR stages when any salary earned by the applicant can be used.

The current guidelines already detail the various scenarios that are acceptable, sponsor already working in the UK, sponsors with job offers, pensioners and those relying on an element of savings, no doubt new rules and guidance will be issued in due course.

The BBC is already claiming that only those who continue to meet the requirements would be allowed to remain and are quoting families who think their plans have been scuppered, it’s all conjecture at this stage.

In the event that a sponsor passes away, there is currently a route for those currently in the UK to immediately apply for ILR, hopefully that option will remain.

[Mike Lister]

The UK really doesn't like citizens who leave the country to live overseas, now it seems they like them even less, if they return with a foreign spouse. Here's an idea, how's about they concentrate on stopping the hundred of thousands of illegal immigrants and those crossing the channel in boats, before attacking expat citizens.

[theoldgit]

6 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

The UK really doesn't like citizens who leave the country to live overseas, now it seems they like them even less, if they return with a foreign spouse. Here's an idea, how's about they concentrate on stopping the hundred of thousands of illegal immigrants and those crossing the channel in boats, before attacking expat citizens.

The issue is that there are not hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, the hundreds of thousands are legal immigrants, hence the crackdown.

Bizarrely you will probably find that there are less immigrants arriving via the English Channel than arriving legally at airports with their partners.

The Goverment are playing the numbers game and looking for a quick fix, l suspect in the full knowledge that many Daily Mail readers support the policy.

 

[brewsterbudgen]

9 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

The issue is that there are not hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, the hundreds of thousands are legal immigrants, hence the crackdown.

Bizarrely you will probably find that there are less immigrants arriving via the English Channel than arriving legally at airports with their partners.

The Goverment are playing the numbers game and looking for a quick fix, l suspect in the full knowledge that many Daily Mail readers support the policy.

 

 

When Nigel Farage comes out of the jungle and re-launches the Reform Party for the election, he's likely to make significant inroads into the Tory base.  I think (well, hope) this is just a sop to the extreme 'Sunella' right, rather than a serious policy that will go into law.

[CartagenaWarlock]

On 12/4/2023 at 11:55 PM, superal said:

The £38k. should not be applied to an indigenous UK national and foreign spouse

"indigenous" a clever way of saying whities? 

[MicroB]

8 hours ago, superal said:

Assumption is that to meet the new rules a UK returning retiree sponsor would have to show proof of pension / income / taxes paid etc . Therefore any non retired new applicants can only show a letter of a job offer and salary offered ? Would the applicant have to keep that job indefinitely to comply with the new rules ? Would the loss of employment or change of job to a lower salary mean deportation ? If a retiree died after only a short amount of time after returning to the UK , would that mean his lady would have to leave the UK ? 

So many ifs & buts and I can see complications arising and possibly fraud and fake applications . However the burden on the benefits system would be lightened as the applicant will be in receipt of reasonable wages . 

I can envisage amendments when the bill is debated in the house of commons / lords .

 

The salary requirements do not bear scrutiny when looking at the logic. The previous £18,600 was based on the threshold that most couples would face if applying for any income-related benefit. Completely logical if the applying couple is told that they must be able to support themselves. The threshold seems to have hardly changed.

 

The Home Secretary (using all the powers of his Hospitality degree he earnt from the local tech college) is now using the median salary of a skilled professional as the threshold for being about to support one self. A lot of skilled professionals earn below this. Some have speculated on the savings threshold, which seems to be generating ludicrous sums. And any spouse on such a visa is already forbidden from accessing any benefits.

 

Home Office modeling apparently indicates this will knock a few tens of thousands of family related visa application. It appears this will all be eliminate spousal visa applications, which would be counted as a success, given currently about 30,000 are awarded each year (90% approval rate).

 

Write to your MP, as I will. Mine will basically do my bidding, as I take a very logical and factual approach with him, which has born fruit, such as getting me in contact with ministers, and actually raising questions on my behalf in the House. I'm lucky as he is one of these very Brexity type MPs, but old school tory, rather than a thug in a suit. He's lost my vote though, but its nothing personal, and he'll be ok as he has the family firm to fall back on.

 

I suspect the HoL will kill this. But the government will invoke the Parliament Act, and manufacture some constitutional crisis, and force a confidence vote or a General Election based around a single issue. Based on his previous role, I don't think Cleverly has the appetite to fight this in the courts. He's more worried about keeping his seat.

[NorthernRyland]

On 12/5/2023 at 10:33 AM, jimn said:

Its being proposed to stop immigrants bringing family into the UK but it has a knock on effect to us born and bred in the UK.

The UK is now in the exact same situation as America and it apparently it's a nation of immigrants so you're on the same footing as person who got their papers yesterday. How they pulled this off to English is beyond me.

[NorthernRyland]

2 hours ago, CartagenaWarlock said:

"indigenous" a clever way of saying whities? 

Do you appreciate the fact that the island has been settled for a thousand years? The immigrants are moving to a settled territory, it's not a frontier nation like USA 200 years ago.

[NorthernRyland]

3 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

Here's an idea, how's about they concentrate on stopping the hundred of thousands of illegal immigrants and those crossing the channel in boats, before attacking expat citizens.

Same as with the US the real numbers are legal immigrants. It makes no sense though because legal immigration is a government sanctioned policy, they want those numbers in the end. They could have just said you can move to work but don't bring your extended family that has no means to support themselves but instead it's a blanket policy that affects everyone.

[CartagenaWarlock]

Just now, NorthernRyland said:

Do you appreciate the fact that the island has been settled for a thousand years? The immigrants are moving to a settled territory, it's not a frontier nation like USA 200 years ago.

How about Romans, Vikings, French, and Germanic tribes? Oops. All are whities. Now that recent immigrants are non-whities, those whites have become "indigenous."

[NorthernRyland]

33 minutes ago, CartagenaWarlock said:

How about Romans, Vikings, French, and Germanic tribes? Oops. All are whities. Now that recent immigrants are non-whities, those whites have become "indigenous."

So the last 1000 years of history means nothing and those people should be subject to anyone coming directly into their towns? Who cares what race they are the island is settled and occupied by them and it should be under their control who enters. When you've had an island under your control for 1000 years, yes, you are indigenous.

[CartagenaWarlock]

Just now, NorthernRyland said:

it should be under their control who enters.

It's under the control of a democratic process. Did you mean the process should be controlled by the "indigenous" people and not by a democratic process? 

Edited December 6, 2023 by CartagenaWarlock

[theblether]

1 hour ago, MicroB said:

 

The salary requirements do not bear scrutiny when looking at the logic. The previous £18,600 was based on the threshold that most couples would face if applying for any income-related benefit. Completely logical if the applying couple is told that they must be able to support themselves. The threshold seems to have hardly changed.

 

The Home Secretary (using all the powers of his Hospitality degree he earnt from the local tech college) is now using the median salary of a skilled professional as the threshold for being about to support one self. A lot of skilled professionals earn below this. Some have speculated on the savings threshold, which seems to be generating ludicrous sums. And any spouse on such a visa is already forbidden from accessing any benefits.

 

Home Office modeling apparently indicates this will knock a few tens of thousands of family related visa application. It appears this will all be eliminate spousal visa applications, which would be counted as a success, given currently about 30,000 are awarded each year (90% approval rate).

 

Write to your MP, as I will. Mine will basically do my bidding, as I take a very logical and factual approach with him, which has born fruit, such as getting me in contact with ministers, and actually raising questions on my behalf in the House. I'm lucky as he is one of these very Brexity type MPs, but old school tory, rather than a thug in a suit. He's lost my vote though, but its nothing personal, and he'll be ok as he has the family firm to fall back on.

 

I suspect the HoL will kill this. But the government will invoke the Parliament Act, and manufacture some constitutional crisis, and force a confidence vote or a General Election based around a single issue. Based on his previous role, I don't think Cleverly has the appetite to fight this in the courts. He's more worried about keeping his seat.

 

The HoL can't kill this policy. It's already proved to be legal. 

[proton]

Or just get on a boat from France, no job, income or documents needed!

[NorthernRyland]

5 minutes ago, CartagenaWarlock said:

It's under the control of a democratic process. Did you mean the process should be controlled by the "indigenous" people and not by a democratic process? 

yes.