Foreign spouses could be told to leave UK under plans to cut legal migration

[CharlieH]

New laws designed to slash the number of migrants by 300,000 a year risk splitting up families already living in the UK.

Brits could see their foreign partners told to leave the country the next time their visa comes up for renewal – if their household does not earn £38,700, No 10 said.

 

The move is part of plans to cut net migration after it soared to nearly three-quarters of a million in 2022.

 

Experts, however, warned the planned crackdown was causing distress for many.

Downing Street defended the policy, saying it was right that “if you are bringing someone into the country you are able to support them”.

 

Under the plans unveiled on Monday those wishing to bring their spouse to the UK will now have to earn £38,700, a significant increase on the current figure of £18,600, and what has been described as a tax on love.

Former Tory minister Gavin Barwell said it was “both morally wrong and unconservative to say that only the wealthiest can fall in love, marry someone and then bring them to the UK”.

As well as applying to those yet to come to the UK, No 10 confirmed the new higher figure risks affecting those already here.

 

Asked if it would apply to partners when they came to renew their visas, No 10 said the change was “not retrospective, but it would apply to renewals in the future”.

At that point, people would be expected to “meet the visa requirements of the day”.

The prime minister’s official spokesperson added: “People always have a set length of time for their visas and will be aware at the conclusion of that visa time that they don’t have a guarantee that they will obviously remain in the country.”

 

FULL STORY

[sikishrory]

And people complain about Thai immigration

[hotchilli]

21 minutes ago, sikishrory said:

And people complain about Thai immigration

Gotta make room for all the free-loading illegals claiming asylum.

[Presnock]

18 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

Gotta make room for all the free-loading illegals claiming asylum.

Used to be in the US, (which has one of the largest allowed immigrants) now mostly illegal but get those bennies.  Before when they arrived, within a week they were called Americans and roamed around until they found a job and a place to stay.  Now they come in legally and illegally (immigration courts take years before they can hear the pleas for asylum and they congregate in one location until they can control the area and begin to try to change the US into the same state as their former country from which they fled.  This is driving the far-right politicians to be able to win and screw up the whole government.  It is happening around the world except in those countries controlled by autocrats - Russia, China, N. Korean, Iran - they sure don't have immigrant problems like the rest of

the "western" nations nor do those living in the sand and stone ages.  Sure makes for a world different than that in which I grew up.

[JonnyF]

No issues with this. Very similar to the Thai system in fact, where people on a marriage visa have to satisfy certain financial requirements.

 

[hotchilli]

2 minutes ago, Presnock said:

Used to be in the US, (which has one of the largest allowed immigrants) now mostly illegal but get those bennies.  Before when they arrived, within a week they were called Americans and roamed around until they found a job and a place to stay.  Now they come in legally and illegally (immigration courts take years before they can hear the pleas for asylum and they congregate in one location until they can control the area and begin to try to change the US into the same state as their former country from which they fled.  This is driving the far-right politicians to be able to win and screw up the whole government.  It is happening around the world except in those countries controlled by autocrats - Russia, China, N. Korean, Iran - they sure don't have immigrant problems like the rest of

the "western" nations nor do those living in the sand and stone ages.  Sure makes for a world different than that in which I grew up.

Sure does.

[hotchilli]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No issues with this. Very similar to the Thai system in fact, where people on a marriage visa have to satisfy certain financial requirements.

 

So are they saying that the spouse resident in UK has to have a single gross income of 38,700 GBP to be able to bring their married partner to the UK?

And that this has to be proved to gain an entry visa to the UK..

Those in the UK with a permission to reside will not be retrospectively affected?

 

 

[JonnyF]

10 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

So are they saying that the spouse resident in UK has to have a single gross income of 38,700 GBP to be able to bring their married partner to the UK?

And that this has to be proved to gain an entry visa to the UK..

Those in the UK with a permission to reside will not be retrospectively affected?

 

 

 

Sounds like it is the person bringing the foreign spouse into the country that needs to earn that amount.

 

Basically, you have to prove that you can support the partner coming into the country. Otherwise, the UK taxpayer has to. Seems fair to me. 

[RayC]

And the reason why immigration is to be slashed by 300k is what? We no longer need the manpower? Our universities are no longer able and/or willing to educate overseas students? And not allowing spouses to join their partners will achieve what exactly?

[themongoose]

27 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

So are they saying that the spouse resident in UK has to have a single gross income of 38,700 GBP to be able to bring their married partner to the UK?

And that this has to be proved to gain an entry visa to the UK..

Those in the UK with a permission to reside will not be retrospectively affected?

 

 

Those already in the UK are retrospectively affected from their 2 1/2 year renewals from April 2024 onwards, however if you are already in the UK and already working, then they can use combined income of both partners to meet that requirement.

 

If the spouse is outside the UK, then the UK partner must meet that requirement alone.

Edited December 6, 2023 by themongoose

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

And the reason why immigration is to be slashed by 300k is what?

 

Maybe the lack of housing, the lack of available school places, the strain on the NHS and the 1.4 million people already unemployed would be a good place to start.

[brewsterbudgen]

Fortunately, this horrible government will not be in power long enough to bring in this cruel and discriminatory changes.  

[RayC]

29 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Maybe the lack of housing, the lack of available school places, the strain on the NHS and the 1.4 million people already unemployed would be a good place to start.

 

The lack of a infrastructure and a creaking NHS is a function of a lack of planning and underinvestment. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that these essential services are in place. If the government is incapable of providing such services and infrastructure then, yes, immigration might need to be restricted which would lead to a slowdown in economic growth.

 

If the government could encourage/ entice UK nationals to fill any vacancies then, I agree, the need for economic migrants would be reduced. However, it appears that the 1.4m UK unemployed workers are unable and/or unwilling to fill these positions, so we are left with the requirement to import labour. Not unreasonably, these overseas workers would like to keep their families together.

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, themongoose said:

Those already in the UK are retrospectively affected from their 2 1/2 year renewals from April 2024 onwards, however if you are already in the UK and already working, then they can use combined income of both partners to meet that requirement.

 

If the spouse is outside the UK, then the UK partner must meet that requirement alone.

The articles in the media on this clearly quote " British citizens or those with settled status looking to bring their family members to UK" 

 

There has also been a quote saying " not retrospective".

[hotchilli]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Sounds like it is the person bringing the foreign spouse into the country that needs to earn that amount.

 

Basically, you have to prove that you can support the partner coming into the country. Otherwise, the UK taxpayer has to. Seems fair to me. 

Been out of the UK for 15 years... is 38,700 GBP an average single income or is it on the high side?

[Purdey]

What happens if the British spouse is retired and the pension is below £38,700? 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Purdey

[themongoose]

12 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

The articles in the media on this clearly quote " British citizens or those with settled status looking to bring their family members to UK" 

 

There has also been a quote saying " not retrospective".

 

However, those of us, including myself, you have already brought there family members to the UK, had to meet the previous requirements of £18,500.

 

The visa at that time is not permanent residency. After 2.5 years, we have to do an Further Leave to Remain (FLR) and after another 2.5 years the Indefinte Leave to Remain (ILR).

 

At each of those stages the income threshold applies. I see no comment from the government that the increase from 18,500 to 38,700 will NOT apply in these stages, and everyone is only focusing on new immigrants.

 

As the comment does say, "not retrospective, but it would apply to renewals in the future". Therefore a foreign spouse can already be in the UK, but now has to meet higher requirements in order to stay.

 

So, as my point was, the difference is that the foreign spouse can use the UK partners income together as a joint income, but for anyone retired or on "low" income, that is going to be a major problem.

Edited December 6, 2023 by themongoose

[youreavinalaff]

11 minutes ago, themongoose said:

 

However, those of us, including myself, you have already brought there family members to the UK, had to meet the previous requirements of £18,500.

 

The visa at that time is not permanent residency. After 2.5 years, we have to do an Further Leave to Remain (FLR) and after another 2.5 years the Indefinte Leave to Remain (ILR).

 

At each of those stages the income threshold applies. I see no comment from the government that the increase from 18,500 to 38,700 will NOT apply in these stages, and everyone is only focusing on new immigrants.

 

As the comment does say, "not retrospective, but it would apply to renewals in the future". Therefore a foreign spouse can already be in the UK, but now has to meet higher requirements in order to stay.

 

So, as my point was, the difference is that the foreign spouse can use the UK partners income together as a joint income, but for anyone retired or on "low" income, that is going to be a major problem.

I've read it differently. 

 

It's retrospective to those who are yet to enter UK. There is also a quote from a top immigration lawyer suggesting the same. 

 

My wife will be eligible for ILR December 2024. I believe the income requirement will remain £18600. I belive the fact she is on a " 5 year route" will count.

Edited December 6, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[themongoose]

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

I've read it differently. 

 

It's retrospective to those who are yet to enter UK. There is also a quote from a top immigration lawyer suggesting the same. 

 

My wife will be eligible for ILR December 2024. I believe the income requirement will remain £18600. I belive the fact she is on a " 5 year route" will count.

 

Differently or perhaps optimistically. I wouldn't put in past the government to move the goalposts.

 

An immigration lawyer can say what they like, but as I said, there have been no comments from the government to confirm that the changes will or will not be retrospective in these cases.

 

Family visas are a small proportion of the overall 300K figure, but it seems that the disruption caused by these changes could be much more severe for families and relationships.

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, themongoose said:

no comments from the government to confirm that the changes will or will not be retrospective in these cases.

There was a comment " not retrospective"

[themongoose]

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

There was a comment " not retrospective"

...but does apply to renewals.

 

The official term by the Home Office for FLRM is "extend".

 

Which is could be another word for "renewal".

[brianthainess]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

No issues with this. Very similar to the Thai system in fact, where people on a marriage visa have to satisfy certain financial requirements.

 

A Huge Huge Difference less than 10k GBP, 400kTB a year and only for 2 months. There is no comparison and your wife does not even have to earn 1baht. 

[lavender19]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

And the reason why immigration is to be slashed by 300k is what? We no longer need the manpower? Our universities are no longer able and/or willing to educate overseas students? And not allowing spouses to join their partners will achieve what exactly?

Stop the thousands of family dependents free loading

[Ben Zioner]

Amazing Britain where a <deleted> PM wants to throw out the <deleted>.

[biggles45]

If net immigration has to be reduced, for whatever reason, why penalize LEGAL applicants? Remind me again just how many illegals have floated across the channel with impunity. How much are they costing the taxpayer and why isn't that a priority...... They are illegals, a criminal action. 

[RobU]

2 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Been out of the UK for 15 years... is 38,700 GBP an average single income or is it on the high side?

Very much on the high side they say the average income is 30000 however that is skewed by the very highly paid upper income workers. The median salary is around 22000 (the median is the amount the majority of workers earn)

[brewsterbudgen]

2 hours ago, Purdey said:

What happens if the British spouse is retired and the pension is below £38,700? 

Unless they have savings that meet the requirements (currently £62,500 but likely to double) they can't get a Settlement visa for their foreign spouse.

[cleopatra2]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

The articles in the media on this clearly quote " British citizens or those with settled status looking to bring their family members to UK" 

 

There has also been a quote saying " not retrospective".

The retrospective term is referring to immigrants current visa. Once that visa is required to be renewed then the new income requirement is in play.

 

I would suspect any current spouse in the UK who could not meet the new financial requirements would have a claim under the right to a family life. This would arise because the immigrant is already in the UK and settled . 

[Jaggg88]

3 hours ago, brianthainess said:

A Huge Huge Difference less than 10k GBP, 400kTB a year and only for 2 months. There is no comparison and your wife does not even have to earn 1baht. 

There is a huge huge difference in the average wage of both countries - in Thailand £4300 PA and the UK £35,000 PA

[youreavinalaff]

3 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

The retrospective term is referring to immigrants current visa. Once that visa is required to be renewed then the new income requirement is in play.

 

I would suspect any current spouse in the UK who could not meet the new financial requirements would have a claim under the right to a family life. This would arise because the immigrant is already in the UK and settled . 

I agree with your second paragraph. 

 

The report about what is retrospective and what isn't is vague. I think for the reason in your second paragraph.

 

I'm sure it will be very difficult to deport a spouse of a British citizen.