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

[youreavinalaff]

5 hours ago, themongoose said:

...but does apply to renewals.

 

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

 

Which is could be another word for "renewal".

Renewals for those already here or for those that aren't?

 

As I've explained, it will be very difficult for the government to deport the spouse of a British national who already has settlement status.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Presnock said:

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.

Perhaps dictatorship has some advantages. Pity western countries have got taken over by the wokies to the point that it seems easier to stay in a western country if one turns up on a leaky boat than by legal means.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Renewals for those already here or for those that aren't?

 

As I've explained, it will be very difficult for the government to deport the spouse of a British national who already has settlement status.

From what I read it's only new applicants and those that are not permanent and require to renew a visa. Just as husbands of Thai wives in Thailand have to beg for a renewal of permission to stay every year.

[Jimjim1]

Strikes me that the government has yet again got hold of the wrong end of the stick and gone after the soft target.

 

whilst the current government can be congratulated on it’s attempts to stop those who having got their own right of domicile then go forward and bring in a spouse from the home country ( mainly Indian, Pakistani and Africans ) who then get indefinite leave to stay themselves go on to bring in the hordes of family members and their wives and children thereby overloading the entire infrastructure of the country and who have never paid a penny in support for said infrastructure and creating an unfairness that is intolerable.

 

Whereas the main problem for us brits is the incredible amount of ILLEGAL immigrants arriving daily in inflatable boats ( 750,000 this year alone ) who then get all of the benefits and a lot more besides to include furnished housing, weekly maintenance, heating, electricity and gas bills all paid, full access to the NHS doctors,Hospitals and DENTISTS all free which is denied to those of us who have paid into the system all of our lives, Just try to get an appointment with ones doctor, you might be lucky but you can wait up to 3 weeks, Dental appointments are relatively easy, you will still have to wait and because they are 98% private you have to pay, ILLEGALS don’t.

 

Sadly the government pays lip service to stopping this inflow but actually doing nothing concrete about it.

 

The problems we have today should not be placed entirely at the door of the current Tory government because it was really started by the last Labour administration who would sell there own children to get a vote for the party, the shengen borders agreement and Angela Merkle of Germany who said Germany needs 1 million immigrants to bolster it’s economy thereby opening the floodgates to millions of uneducated third world country peoples who will never ever be a worthwhile or beneficial population simply because a life on benefits is far more acceptable to them than working.

 

So now we return to the parts that the government fails to understand, whilst this country needs QUALIFIED worthy immigrants who want to work and support themselves and their families they are precluded from doing so now by a policy that’s states they must be earning the equivalent of £38,000 completely forgetting that the salary structure within the countries of those wishing to come here is not commensurate with that level, so sadly they and any married Brit wishing to bring his / her partner here is punished by an ill thought out knee jerk reaction. 

[hotchilli]

7 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 . 

Fun times ahead by the look of it... for those in or wanting to go to the UK

[JonnyF]

13 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. 

 

Yes well Thailand has a much lower cost of living. 10k won't get you far in the UK, to be fair it should probably be higher in Thailand. 

[FritsSikkink]

22 hours 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.

Spend less on the wars.

[Georgealbert]

[youreavinalaff]

On 12/6/2023 at 9:06 AM, 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.

How do those things make the government think my wife is an issue?

 

She lives with me. In a property we own. A property that I would live in if she was not here. Our daughter is 22 and working.

 

She pays NHS surcharge at each visa stage AND pays income tax and NI.

 

There have been over 1 million unemployed for as long as I can remember. That says something about a large proportion of the unemployed. Besides, there are over 1 million job vacancies currently.

[Chris1950]

On 12/6/2023 at 1:00 PM, RobU said:

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)

No, the median salary is 34,963 British poundl.

[RobU]

2 hours ago, Chris1950 said:

No, the median salary is 34,963 British poundl.

That is the median HOUSEHOLD income. I.e. the income from both partners if they are both working or a single partner if only one is working. The new regulation is based on household income since foreign partner's income is also taken into account 

[youreavinalaff]

27 minutes ago, RobU said:

The new regulation is based on household income since foreign partner's income is also taken into account 

Not for the initial settlement visa application.

[Chelseafan]

On 12/6/2023 at 1:00 PM, RobU said:

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)

 

According to the interweb, the average mean income for full time employees is £39,966 though I reckon the Median income is a lot lower.

 

 

[RobU]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Not for the initial settlement visa application.

It is still household income but one person (the immigrant) does not work, because s/he does not have permission, so the other partner has to earn it all. Once the immigrant partner gets permission to work his/her contribution will be accepted as part of the household income

Edited December 8, 2023 by RobU
Clarification

[JonnyF]

14 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

How do those things make the government think my wife is an issue?

 

She lives with me. In a property we own. A property that I would live in if she was not here. Our daughter is 22 and working.

 

She pays NHS surcharge at each visa stage AND pays income tax and NI.

 

There have been over 1 million unemployed for as long as I can remember. That says something about a large proportion of the unemployed. Besides, there are over 1 million job vacancies currently.

 

In your circumstances (which are none of my business) I suspect you would meet the financial requirements based on savings, combined income etc.

 

This is clearly aimed at people who bring their partners to the UK with no way of supporting them and expect the state to bail them out. As always, when the government cracks down on people abusing the system a few get caught in the net. That is unfortunate but unavoidable. It's another consquence of the "do gooders" doing more harm than good with their "everyone is welcome" virtue signalling without careful consideration of the economic impact to good, hard working people like you and your family. 

 

As for the unemployed, I would drastically reduce benefits for people healthy enough to work so they are essentially forced to work. I would use the money saved to help those who genuinely cannot work and therefore need assistance.

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, RobU said:

It is still household income but one person (the immigrant) does not work, because s/he does not have permission, so the other partner has to earn it all. Once the immigrant partner gets permission to work his/her contribution will be accepted as part of the household income

I'm not disputing it's household income.

 

You said it covers both incomes of a work8ng couple. I just pointed out it doesn't for the initial application.

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

In your circumstances (which are none of my business) I suspect you would meet the financial requirements based on savings, combined income etc.

 

This is clearly aimed at people who bring their partners to the UK with no way of supporting them and expect the state to bail them out. As always, when the government cracks down on people abusing the system a few get caught in the net. That is unfortunate but unavoidable. It's another consquence of the "do gooders" doing more harm than good with their "everyone is welcome" virtue signalling without careful consideration of the economic impact to good, hard working people like you and your family. 

 

As for the unemployed, I would drastically reduce benefits for people healthy enough to work so they are essentially forced to work. I would use the money saved to help those who genuinely cannot work and therefore need assistance.

I'm semi retired. My wife works. I'll now need to go back to work full time, albeit only for 6 months, despite owning a property outright and having money in the bank. If the rules apply to those already in UK, which is still unconfirmed.

 

The jump from £18600 to £37500 is too much in one go. There are going to be so many legitimate applications that now cannot go ahead. In many cases, £18600 as a start is sufficient to support 2 people. 

[brewsterbudgen]

5 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I'm semi retired. My wife works. I'll now need to go back to work full time, albeit only for 6 months, despite owning a property outright and having money in the bank. If the rules apply to those already in UK, which is still unconfirmed.

 

The jump from £18600 to £37500 is too much in one go. There are going to be so many legitimate applications that now cannot go ahead. In many cases, £18600 as a start is sufficient to support 2 people. 

You can use money in the bank (savings) if you don't meet the salary the requirements.  Currently it's £62,500 although this is likely to increase substantially.

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, brewsterbudgen said:

You can use money in the bank (savings) if you don't meet the salary the requirements.  Currently it's £62,500 although this is likely to increase substantially.

I understand that part. However, money is not just sat there in a bank.

 

That's was bad terminology on my part. Words ive always used to cover money saved. Sorry.

Edited December 8, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I'm semi retired. My wife works. I'll now need to go back to work full time, albeit only for 6 months, despite owning a property outright and having money in the bank. If the rules apply to those already in UK, which is still unconfirmed.

 

The jump from £18600 to £37500 is too much in one go. There are going to be so many legitimate applications that now cannot go ahead. In many cases, £18600 as a start is sufficient to support 2 people. 

 

I don't think 18600 is enough for 2 people, although it depends on the circumstances. For example, if you own your own house then I guess 2 people could just about get by on that but it would be a stretch.

 

They should probably make the rule a bit more sophisticated to take account of non cash assets like house ownership, also the place of residence since living in London is way more expensive than living in somewhere like Birmingham. No way that 2 people with rent to pay could survive on 18600 living in London, it wouldn't even cover rent.

[youreavinalaff]

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

I don't think 18600 is enough for 2 people, although it depends on the circumstances. For example, if you own your own house then I guess 2 people could just about get by on that but it would be a stretch.

 

They should probably make the rule a bit more sophisticated to take account of non cash assets like house ownership, also the place of residence since living in London is way more expensive than living in somewhere like Birmingham. No way that 2 people with rent to pay could survive on 18600 living in London, it wouldn't even cover rent.

You disagree then you go on to give examples to contradict yourself.

 

With a home bought and paid for, £18600 is more than enough for many. My wife and I live comfortably and, though we have the spending power to do so, dont spend more than a grand a month.

 

I agree with you that the rigid, one size fits all, doesn't work.

 

 

[RayC]

16 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

I agree with you that the rigid, one size fits all, doesn't work.

 

 

 

What's the alternative? It's not practical to look at each application on an individual basis?

[RobU]

43 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I'm not disputing it's household income.

 

You said it covers both incomes of a work8ng couple. I just pointed out it doesn't for the initial application.

Which reinforces my point that this is about average household income not individual income.

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

You disagree then you go on to give examples to contradict yourself.

 

Actually I said it depends on the circumstances. 18600 with no rent to pay is doable. 18600 with rent to pay is pretty much impossible. After tax that 18000 is about 16000. I rent out a small 2 up 2 down end terrace in the South West and the tenants pay 15k a year. So that would leave 2 people with 1000 pounds for the whole year before you even pay council tax, water and electricity. Anywhere near London that rent would be at least 50% more. In those circumstances it is clearly not enough.

 

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

With a home bought and paid for, £18600 is more than enough for many. My wife and I live comfortably and, though we have the spending power to do so, dont spend more than a grand a month.

 

I agree with you that the rigid, one size fits all, doesn't work.

 

 

 

Agree. They should do more than factor in only income but then it gets complicated with things like home owners with mortgages, location, household debt etc. They have to draw the line somewhere. It seems they have got to the point where you are better of turning up at Dover in a dinghy than doing it legally. They should focus on the fake asylum seekers complaining that the Wifi isn't fast enough in their free accomodation.

[youreavinalaff]

Just now, RayC said:

 

What's the alternative? It's not practical to look at each application on an individual basis?

Each application is already looked at on an individual basis.

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Actually I said it depends on the circumstances. 18600 with no rent to pay is doable. 18600 with rent to pay is pretty much impossible. After tax that 18000 is about 16000. I rent out a small 2 up 2 down end terrace in the South West and the tenants pay 15k a year. So that would leave 2 people with 1000 pounds for the whole year before you even pay council tax, water and electricity. Anywhere near London that rent would be at least 50% more. In those circumstances it is clearly not enough.

 

 

Agree. They should do more than factor in only income but then it gets complicated with things like home owners with mortgages, location, household debt etc. They have to draw the line somewhere. It seems they have got to the point where you are better of turning up at Dover in a dinghy than doing it legally. They should focus on the fake asylum seekers complaining that the Wifi isn't fast enough in their free accomodation.

No. It isn't easier to turn up in a dinghy.

 

That comment undermines all the good points you make.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

No. It isn't easier to turn up in a dinghy.

 

That comment undermines all the good points you make.

 

What's the minimum income requirement for people turning up in a dinghy claiming asylum?

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

What's the minimum income requirement for people turning up in a dinghy claiming asylum?

You are not looking at the bigger picture.

 

 

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

You are not looking at the bigger picture.

 

 

 

Actually I am. 

 

If there weren't so many illegals arriving and using up public funds while simultaneously causing anti immigration sentiment in the populace then the government would be less likely to crack down on those taking the legal route like yourself. 

 

Like I always said, I have no problem with legal immigration and I wish you all the best with the application. Illegal immigration causes problems for everyone.

[RayC]

14 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Each application is already looked at on an individual basis.

 

 

 

But within the constraints imposed by the regulations.