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

[youreavinalaff]

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

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.

Changing the subject does not change the meaning of what you said.

[youreavinalaff]

10 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

But within the constraints imposed by the regulations.

Exactly.

 

So, a change in regulations would not change the way the applications are processed.

 

Example, if home ownership was taken into consideration, we could upload a copy of our deeds. UKVI would check them. Just as they do with the other documents we upload. If they took share ownership into consideration, we would upload those documents. UKVI would then check those documents, just as they do the other documents we upload.

 

Same process.

[RayC]

50 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

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.

 

For once, I agree with your conclusion.

 

Illegal immigration is a problem both in human and financial terms. From a purely financial perspective it costs £3bn per year according to the Home Office figures.

 

Apparently it takes an average of 6 months to reach a first decision on an asylum application and 75% are granted. It then takes an average of 82 weeks to complete the appeal process. Given that housing illegal immigrants costs £8m/day, reducing the time taken to close an asylum case by only a month would save +/-£300m. Surely that must be possible?

 

Having said that, illegal immigration accounts for only +/-0.5% of total immigration and is therefore relatively unimportant in the wider scheme of things. What the UK lacks is a coherent government immigration strategy based on a 'top-down' analysis of the its' requirements, not the 'bottom-up', knee-jerk "we must cut the number of immigrants" strategy which we have now.

 

Oh for the halycon days when the UK could source its' labour requirements from its' near-neighbours without many problems and without much difficulty.

 

(I have no idea why some text has suddenly appeared in red!)

 

(Postscript: Some text appeared on my screen in red. Honest!)

Edited December 8, 2023 by RayC
Addendum

[RayC]

28 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Exactly.

 

So, a change in regulations would not change the way the applications are processed.

 

Example, if home ownership was taken into consideration, we could upload a copy of our deeds. UKVI would check them. Just as they do with the other documents we upload. If they took share ownership into consideration, we would upload those documents. UKVI would then check those documents, just as they do the other documents we upload.

 

Same process.

 

But it presumably would require extra cost, time and effort to verify the legitimately of this additional data as a time when there is already a backlog? And where do you draw the line regarding what additional data to take into account?

[GinBoy2]

Maybe just take a different approach.

 

For US immigration it's a much lower financial requirement.

 

At the same time the immigrant spouse just can't claim any federal benefits, no if's or but's.

 

So wouldn't it be better to just stick with that 18k pounds for foreign spouses and just say regardless you can't claim any benefits from the State?

[RayC]

1 hour ago, GinBoy2 said:

Maybe just take a different approach.

 

For US immigration it's a much lower financial requirement.

 

At the same time the immigrant spouse just can't claim any federal benefits, no if's or but's.

 

So wouldn't it be better to just stick with that 18k pounds for foreign spouses and just say regardless you can't claim any benefits from the State?

 

The bottom line is that the economics associated with immigration in the UK is just a side-issue: It's all about the absolute number of immigrants.

 

Right-wing populists and their media mouthpieces scream that there are too many immigrants - not that they are racists or xenophobes you understand - without having the faintest idea of what criteria should be used to determine the 'right' number, let alone what that number actually should be.

 

Unfortunately, this call for a reduction in the number of immigrants seems to resonate with a sizeable minority of the electorate. The Tory government  - which is hemorrhaging support - has decided that embracing this anti-immigrant rhetoric gives it the best chance of avoiding defeat at the forthcoming general election.

[youreavinalaff]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

 

But it presumably would require extra cost, time and effort to verify the legitimately of this additional data as a time when there is already a backlog? And where do you draw the line regarding what additional data to take into account?

I have outlined my suggestions above.

 

Include property and investments.

 

Checking would take minutes.

 

I believe UKVI are on top of things right now. I've been hearing reports of waiting times meeting, or bettering, those published.

[youreavinalaff]

3 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

So wouldn't it be better to just stick with that 18k pounds for foreign spouses and just say regardless you can't claim any benefits from the State?

That rule already stands in UK.

[JonnyF]

5 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Changing the subject does not change the meaning of what you said.

 

I didn't change the subject.

 

I provided you with the bigger picture (since you raised the subject).

 

Anyway, good luck with the application.

[youreavinalaff]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I didn't change the subject.

 

I provided you with the bigger picture (since you raised the subject).

 

Anyway, good luck with the application.

I was referring to your comment " It seems they have got to the point where you are better of turning up at Dover in a dinghy than doing it legally."

 

That is not accurate.

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

I was referring to your comment " It seems they have got to the point where you are better of turning up at Dover in a dinghy than doing it legally."

 

That is not accurate.

 

Is your wife being put up in a hotel free of charge while her application is processed?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/19/cost-housing-asylum-seekers-hotels-rise-home-office

 

[RayC]

58 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I have outlined my suggestions above.

 

Include property and investments.

 

Checking would take minutes.

 

I believe UKVI are on top of things right now. I've been hearing reports of waiting times meeting, or bettering, those published.

 

If the waiting times for processing applications are being reduced then that is welcome news.

 

Wrt including property and investments in the calculations, why would the government do that? The whole point of this piece of legislation is to reduce the number of (spousal) immigrants. Why introduce anything that undermines that objective?

 

I don't agree with the objective; I think it cruel. But as piece of legislation to support the goal of reducing immigration it makes perfect sense, even if the numbers involved are relatively small.

[youreavinalaff]

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Is your wife being put up in a hotel free of charge while her application is processed?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/19/cost-housing-asylum-seekers-hotels-rise-home-office

 

No.

 

However, she's taken no life threatening journeys across land or sea, she can live with me, she has freedom of movement in UK, she can work, shop, eat, dleep and play when she wants and where she wants and what she wants. She can leave and return when she wants, she has just returned from a 3 week trip to Thailand, she can contact her family when she wants, she can.........the list goes on. 

[youreavinalaff]

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

If the waiting times for processing applications are being reduced then that is welcome news.

 

Wrt including property and investments in the calculations, why would the government do that? The whole point of this piece of legislation is to reduce the number of (spousal) immigrants. Why introduce anything that undermines that objective?

 

I don't agree with the objective; I think it cruel. But as piece of legislation to support the goal of reducing immigration it makes perfect sense, even if the numbers involved are relatively small.

As pointed out by JohnnyF, salary and living costs vary depending on financial status. 

 

We own our property and therefore have low outgoings. The government statement was something like " the new figures are to ensure sponsors can take care of their family members". 

 

My wife and I can easily live on the previous figure because of our financial situation, one that is not taken into account by the current requirements.

[RayC]

6 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

As pointed out by JohnnyF, salary and living costs vary depending on financial status. 

 

We own our property and therefore have low outgoings. The government statement was something like " the new figures are to ensure sponsors can take care of their family members". 

 

My wife and I can easily live on the previous figure because of our financial situation, one that is not taken into account by the current requirements.

 

I would imagine that most, if not all, applicants' situations are unique in some way; however, addressing 50+k applicants based on their own individual circumstances simply isn't possible. Some structure is necessary.

 

As I said previously, I don't agree with the proposed legislation but, in this instance, I understand why it has taken this form. The KISS principle definitely applies here given the objective.

[youreavinalaff]

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I would imagine that most, if not all, applicants' situations are unique in some way; however, addressing 50+k applicants based on their own individual circumstances simply isn't possible. Some structure is necessary.

 

As I said previously, I don't agree with the proposed legislation but, in this instance, I understand why it has taken this form. The KISS principle definitely applies here given the objective.

Applications are already addressed on their own individual circumstances.

 

UK couples are almost always subjected to income and outgoings scrutiny when applying for many things. Whether it's a loan from a bank, a mortgage,HP on a car....

 

Government agencies also take this into consideration, along with assets, when accessing benefits applications, universal credit, tax credits, health care when elderly, disability payments.........

 

It would be very simple, and fair, to do the same with family settlement applications. In our case we easily qualify for the government requirement that we can financially take care of ourselves.

Edited December 8, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[BangkokAlan]

On 12/6/2023 at 8:56 AM, 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?

They are targeting the group of immigrants who work hard and support the UK economy such as nurses and students. Completely wrong approach. 

[RayC]

9 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Applications are already addressed on their own individual circumstances.

 

UK couples are almost always subjected to income and outgoings scrutiny when applying for many things. Whether it's a loan from a bank, a mortgage,HP on a car....

 

Government agencies also take this into consideration, along with assets, when accessing benefits applications, universal credit, tax credits, health care when elderly, disability payments.........

 

It would be very simple, and fair, to do the same with family settlement applications. In our case we easily qualify for the government requirement that we can financially take care of ourselves.

 

If fairness (morality) had anything to do with it, then the legislation wouldn't be being proposed in the first place.

 

However, I don't believe that it would be necessarily simple to take into account the different living costs throughout the UK. For a start: How should it be done? By region? By borough?

 

What about the unintended consequences of introducing such a plan? For example, there are nursing/ care vacancies throughout the country. If the financial requirements for London are higher than elsewhere - which would almost certainly be the case - there may well a shortage of applicants applying for jobs there compared with other areas, especially if this means keeping the family unit together.

[RayC]

12 minutes ago, BangkokAlan said:

They are targeting the group of immigrants who work hard and support the UK economy such as nurses and students. Completely wrong approach. 

 

Absolutely correct. Low hanging fruit.

[youreavinalaff]

6 hours ago, RayC said:

 

If fairness (morality) had anything to do with it, then the legislation wouldn't be being proposed in the first place.

 

However, I don't believe that it would be necessarily simple to take into account the different living costs throughout the UK. For a start: How should it be done? By region? By borough?

 

What about the unintended consequences of introducing such a plan? For example, there are nursing/ care vacancies throughout the country. If the financial requirements for London are higher than elsewhere - which would almost certainly be the case - there may well a shortage of applicants applying for jobs there compared with other areas, especially if this means keeping the family unit together.

You are clearly not reading my comments correctly.

 

I have shown how it would be done. Home ownership and investments being two. If I own a house in London or Cumbria it makes no difference. My mortgage/rent is still ZERO.

 

You are just being picky.

Edited December 8, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[RayC]

11 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

You are clearly not reading my comments correctly.

 

I have shown how it would be done. Home ownership and investments being two. If I own a house in London or Cumbria it makes no difference. My mortgage/rent is still ZERO.

 

You are just being picky.

 

Yes, I am being picky. I do this to illustrate the point that any means tested system will almost certainly leave some people feeling hard done by. Imo it should be done away with completely. Anyone coming to this country at the invitation of the UK government should be able to bring their (nuclear) family with them.

 

(I think that?) we agree that this proposed change in legislation has nothing to do with fairness and morality. That is not the point. If there is a reduction in the number of spousal visas granted, with a corresponding decrease in the number of immigrants to the UK, then the government can claim a 'victory': You appear unwilling to acknowledge this as, unfortunately, this change in legislation has negative implications for you personally.

[youreavinalaff]

39 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Yes, I am being picky. I do this to illustrate the point that any means tested system will almost certainly leave some people feeling hard done by. Imo it should be done away with completely. Anyone coming to this country at the invitation of the UK government should be able to bring their (nuclear) family with them.

 

(I think that?) we agree that this proposed change in legislation has nothing to do with fairness and morality. That is not the point. If there is a reduction in the number of spousal visas granted, with a corresponding decrease in the number of immigrants to the UK, then the government can claim a 'victory': You appear unwilling to acknowledge this as, unfortunately, this change in legislation has negative implications for you personally.

This thread isn't about people being invited.

 

I believe there needs to be a system whereby checks need to be made that those that come to UK can take care of themselves.

 

Taking investments and property ownership into account would help some, not make them feel hard done by.

 

There is not much of a negative impact on us. I might need to work 2 days a week for 6 months. 

[RayC]

11 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

This thread isn't about people being invited.

 

I believe there needs to be a system whereby checks need to be made that those that come to UK can take care of themselves.

 

Taking investments and property ownership into account would help some, not make them feel hard done by.

 

There is not much of a negative impact on us. I might need to work 2 days a week for 6 months. 

 

Yes it is about being "invited". The UK government has identified sectors of the economy in the UK where, for whatever reason, there are positions which are not being filled by the local population. Therefore, it "invites" overseas workers to fill those positions.

 

Imo it is counter-productive to restrict the potential supply pool by imposing draconian restrictions such as potentially breaking up the family unit. We can agree that bringing a partner (and children) to the UK will entail expense, it is therefore higher unlikely that a potential economic migrant will apply for a position if the move doesn't cost-in for them.

 

I guess that where someone stands on the issue of (legal) mitigation depends largely upon one's initial assumptions. It is surely incontestable that people migrate to improve their lot? Where a difference occurs is that some of us start from the position whereby we believe that migrants are overwhelmingly decent people, who are prepared to work hard and integrate themselves into the host society. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who are suspicious of immigrants and think that they are simply on the take and, in the worst-case scenario, out to destroy the host country's way of live. Sadly, an increasing number of people seem drawn to the latter extreme.

 

If you are going to paraphrase what I say please do not alter the meaning: I did not say that "Taking investments and property ownership into account would ... make (some) feel hard done by". What I actually said was " ...any means tested system will almost certainly leave some people feeling hard done by" which is completely different.

 

You are probably more fortunate than many by not being greatly affected by this proposed change.

[youreavinalaff]

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

If you are going to paraphrase what I say please do not alter the meaning:

Follow your own advice. It would save you needing to post half of what you do.

[RayC]

20 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Follow your own advice. It would save you needing to post half of what you do.

 

Where have I either misquoted you or paraphrased your view incorrectly? Post an instance of me doing so and I will apologise, although I don't expect to have to do so.

 

You really don't like having your errors pointed out to you, do you?

[brewsterbudgen]

20 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Yes it is about being "invited". The UK government has identified sectors of the economy in the UK where, for whatever reason, there are positions which are not being filled by the local population. Therefore, it "invites" overseas workers to fill those positions.

 

 

Except this particular thread is not about being invited!  It's about British citizens and their foreign spouses.  

[youreavinalaff]

8 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Where have I either misquoted you or paraphrased your view incorrectly? Post an instance of me doing so and I will apologise, although I don't expect to have to do so.

 

You really don't like having your errors pointed out to you, do you?

You have consistently picked and picked without actually pointing out accurately what I've said. You always add little bits to tweak my posts to your liking.

 

I have not made any errors. You disagree with what you perceive I've said and then call the errors. 

 

Opinions cannot be called errors. You can disagree with them but that doesn't make them wrong.

[RayC]

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

You have consistently picked and picked without actually pointing out accurately what I've said. You always add little bits to tweak my posts to your liking.

 

I have not made any errors. You disagree with what you perceive I've said and then call the errors. 

 

Opinions cannot be called errors. You can disagree with them but that doesn't make them wrong.

 

Here we go again! True to form: More linguistic gymnastics from you.

 

Anyway, I'm in a generous mood. Have a look at the attached link from about 3' 45" to 4' 15": I'm sure that you will enjoy it.

https://youtu.be/98UYFpVC0pc?feature=shared

 

[youreavinalaff]

5 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Here we go again! True to form: More linguistic gymnastics from you.

 

Anyway, I'm in a generous mood. Have a look at the attached link from about 3' 45" to 4' 15": I'm sure that you will enjoy it.

https://youtu.be/98UYFpVC0pc?feature=shared

 

Linguistic gymnastics? I take that as a compliment. Especially as, in my opinion, I've been using quite basic English to explain views on simple subjects.

 

Not my fault if some find it difficult to keep up.

 

As I said, in simple terms, opinions cannot be deemed errors. They can be disagreed with but cannot be wrong. Simple once more.

[RayC]

12 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Linguistic gymnastics? I take that as a compliment. Especially as, in my opinion, I've been using quite basic English to explain views on simple subjects.

 

I'm pleased that you are happy with my 'compliment'. I imagine that I will have more opportunities in the future to be even more complimentary.

 

12 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

Not my fault if some find it difficult to keep up.

 

I wasn't aware that "some" were finding it difficult to keep up. Perhaps, you could point out instances of where this has occurred and I'll help out if I can. My offer is, of course, open to you as well if you find yourself struggling. 

 

12 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

As I said, in simple terms, opinions cannot be deemed errors. They can be disagreed with but cannot be wrong. Simple once more.

 

Correct.

 

But the 'simple' fact is that you misunderstood and therefore misrepresented a comment of mine (deliberately or not?🤔) which was an error irrespective of whether it was a lack of clarity on my part or a lack of nous on yours.