Fury grows over Tory visa rules where ‘only the rich’ dare fall in love

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, TigerandDog said:

So 2  brits can marry each other and live in the UK, even if they earn less than 38.7k quid, BUT a brit can't marry a foreigner and bring her to the UK if they earn less than that. Absolute hypocrisy & racism at it's best. The only way that this proposed law would cease to be racist and hypocritical would be for the law to forbid any couple (british or otherwise) from marrying and living in the UK if they earn less than 38.7k quid. Could you imagine the uproar if that was the case. Total idiots in govt in the UK too.

 

Dont be ridiculous. You cant expect British nationals and non British nationals to have the same rights in Britain.

 

Same as you dont have the rights as a Thai in Thailand. Or the same rights as a Japanese national in Japan. That's how it works the world over. Cry racism all you like but the fact is a white Australian national doesn't have the same rights as a black/Asian Briton in Britain, the white Australian has less rights. It's based on nationality not race. And rightly so. 

Edited December 11, 2023 by JonnyF

[brewsterbudgen]

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Dont be ridiculous. You cant expect British nationals and non British nationals to have the same rights in Britain.

 

Same as you dont have the rights as a Thai in Thailand. Or the same rights as a Japanese national in Japan. That's how it works the world over. Cry racism all you like but the fact is a white Australian national doesn't have the same rights as a black/Asian Briton in Britain, the white Australian has less rights. It's based on nationality not race. And rightly so. 

You're, perhaps deliberately, missing the point.  This is about the rights of British nationals to live with their spouse and family in the UK.

[RayC]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Dont be ridiculous. You cant expect British nationals and non British nationals to have the same rights in Britain.

 

Same as you dont have the rights as a Thai in Thailand. Or the same rights as a Japanese national in Japan. That's how it works the world over. Cry racism all you like but the fact is a white Australian national doesn't have the same rights as a black/Asian Briton in Britain, the white Australian has less rights. It's based on nationality not race. And rightly so. 

 

"Cry racism all you like ..." Ok, it's racist (or xenophobic).

 

The fact that other nations such as Thailand also have laws which discriminate against non-nationals is no justification.

[RayC]

54 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

I predict that even this shameful, evil government will backtrack on this, or obfuscate so that it never actually goes through.  It's just a shameless attempt to try and stop Farage and the Reform Party decimating the Tories at next year's election.  

 

I agree that this is an attempt by the Tories to stop their support migrating (pun intended) to Reform but, if they are to have any chance of that happening, they will need to enact this proposal: Dropping it will make them look even more forlorn.

[JonnyF]

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

2 sharp and cogent posts.

Hardly.

 

1. People who cannot meet the new requirements are unlikely to be happy with them.

 

2. Non British nationals cannot expect to have the same rights in Britain as British nationals. The requirement is for a visa. British nationals do not require a visa to live in Britian.

[JonnyF]

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

"Cry racism all you like ..." Ok, it's racist (or xenophobic).

 

The fact that other nations such as Thailand also have laws which discriminate against non-nationals is no justification.

 

Name me a country that gives the same rights to non nationals as to nationals. 

[JonnyF]

15 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

You're, perhaps deliberately, missing the point.  This is about the rights of British nationals to live with their spouse and family in the UK.

 

There is the right. As long as you meet the requirements.

 

Same as foreign men with Thai wives who wish to live in Thailand.

 

The sense of entitlement is astounding. 

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

So, not content with denying many Brits the pension increases that those living in the UK receive - despite them having paid into exactly the same system all their working life - they now deny the right of Brits to live in Britain unless they divorce their foreign, nasty, evil, asylum-seeking spouse.

 

I don't know what it is with British Home Secretaries. Theresa May began this blockade of Brits, then we had Priti Patel and Suella Braverman to complete the coven of witches. And now James Cleverley, ironically himself a descendent of immigrants - like the PM, Patel and Braverman - adds his name to the group. I thought the idea was to crack down on illegal immigrants, not to ban Brits who want to live in the UK from marrying foreigners.

 

Nobody is preventing them getting married. But they have to prove that they can support them if they wish to reside in the UK so we dont get another round of benefit scroungers. You know the deal, unemployed chav, go to pattaya to manage a bar for 6 months, import a "wife", have 3 kids to qualify for a council house in Britain and never work another day in your life. 

 

Given the global rise in costs its normal that the limit goes up. 38k for 2 people sounds reasonable although I believe they should account for non cash assets like property and investments.

 

There is nothing new here. The cost has changed that's all. 

 

Perhaps if the government hadn't allowed illegal immigration to get out of control they wouldn't have looked at this. Another cost of not managing illegal immigration properly. 

[TigerandDog]

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

You're, perhaps deliberately, missing the point.  This is about the rights of British nationals to live with their spouse and family in the UK.

you're the one missing the point. I fully understand what it's about. You've missed the point that it's racist and hypocritical. Go and reread my post and perhaps you'll understand the point I was making.

[youreavinalaff]

55 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You know the deal, unemployed chav, go to pattaya to manage a bar for 6 months, import a "wife", have 3 kids to qualify for a council house in Britain and never work another day in your life. 

No. That deal is not possible.

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

No. That deal is not possible.

 

Correct.

 

Thanks to the financial requirements that you are objecting to.

 

It seems you agree that there should be financial requirements but as soon as they extend beyond the point that YOU can meet them they become unacceptable. 

[Doctor Tom]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Cue (next) nursing crisis in the NHS.

They are unaffected by the new rules 

[youreavinalaff]

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Correct.

 

Thanks to the financial requirements that you are objecting to.

 

It seems you agree that there should be financial requirements but as soon as they extend beyond the point that YOU can meet them they become unacceptable. 

As I've previously mentioned, nobody appears to be complaining about restrictions.

 

It's the rise in restrictions. There is no logical reason for the level of income required to more than double in one hit.

 

Whether the changes will affect those already on visas in UK is yet unconfirmed. If it is confirmed, this too is illogical. My wife and I have been happily living in UK for 4 years over the old threshold but we'll below the new one. We've never claimed a penny from the government, my wife works hard, pays double bubble on NHS +NI, we managed to buy our own property outright, yet this is possibly not going to be good enough.

 

It's not a point of we can't meet them , putting "you" in capitals was obtuse, because we can with a little change in routines. It's a point of the hike in requirements and fees is too much in one go with little notice.

 

I wonder who would complain if the income levels for income support or tax credits or other benefits moved by so much. Those who are actually costing the government money as to those who are not and are actually contributing. 

Edited December 11, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[youreavinalaff]

8 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

They are unaffected by the new rules 

So, they fit into your " not fit to support a spouse" bracket. I'm sure they'll all be very happy for "Doctor" Tom to brand them in such a way.

[impulse]

Curious about the relative numbers...

 

What percentage of the affected people will be native Brits falling in love and wanting to bring their spouse in, vs the percentage of 3rd world refugees who anchor themselves with a minimal job then send for their wife and 6 kids, along with (eventually) the extended families of both spouses?

 

Surely, it sucks for those who get locked out, but I wonder what the real goal is.

 

[lopburi3]

20 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Classic anti Tory hyperbole from the guardian.

 

If you want to bring a spouse to the country you must be able to support them and yourself. The rules could be more refined but the sentiment is correct. 

 

 

And here I thought the UK was on board with equal rights for all - and that most such families would became dual income households - not that one had to support spouse.

[soi3eddie]

They can't stop the illegal immigration so they make it more difficult to immigrate legally. Look at the numbers of immigrants. By far the most coming to the UK are legal migrants and dependants (spouses and children). It's about total numbers and unfortunately the blanket policy will catch Brits bringing in spouses (rather than workers and students bringing in family at the same time). Strikes me as unfair on British, so why can't there be a distinction between Brits and non Brits bringing spouses to the UK. Shouldn't be too difficult to differentiate with different levels of requirements. 

 

[Bangkok Barry]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Nobody is preventing them getting married. But they have to prove that they can support them if they wish to reside in the UK so we dont get another round of benefit scroungers. You know the deal, unemployed chav, go to pattaya to manage a bar for 6 months, import a "wife", have 3 kids to qualify for a council house in Britain and never work another day in your life. 

 

They are not preventing them from getting married, but they ARE preventing them from living together in the UK if the wife doesn't have a British passport, unless you are one of the minority 25% earning 750 pounds a week (see the linked article, which says that three quarters do not earn that much).

Also, not everyone finds a wife in Pattaya.

 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Perhaps if the government hadn't allowed illegal immigration to get out of control they wouldn't have looked at this. Another cost of not managing illegal immigration properly. 

 

The new rule has nothing at all to do with illegal immigration. It has to do with those coming to live in the UK having a job to come to which pays over 38,000 a year. But what is does at the same time is demand that both foreigners and THOSE MARRIED TO A FOREIGNER must also match that income level.

It is meant to prevent abuse of the system which has until now allowed LEGAL immigrants the right to bring several members of their family to join them in the UK. But as well as doing that it will prevent many UK passport holders from living in their own country as they - the 75% - don't meet the financial threshold. Some might not need that level of income if, for example, they don't have to pay for accommodation as they own a property there.

 

It's aimed at Mr Patel not being able to bring half his village with him from India, but people born in the UK with a British passport are caught up in the restrictions too. There needs to be a clause that excludes UK passport holders, but as far as I know there is not.

[Doctor Tom]

54 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

So, they fit into your " not fit to support a spouse" bracket. I'm sure they'll all be very happy for "Doctor" Tom to brand them in such a way.

The country doesn't need any more low earning potential people, the UK has enough of them. Too many unknowing Thai ladies have hitched up to low life's who can splash the cash on holiday, only to end up in some hovel somewhere in UK with a low earner. ITV had a documentary on this very subject some years back and the US programme '90 Day Fiancée, covers the same subject. Own house, no renters, no mortgage, then maybe £38,700 is enough, otherwise it certainly is nowhere near enough.  

[VBF]

10 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

What a completely and utterly idiotic thing to say.

 

I own my own UK house (no mortgage approx £360,000 value if i sold it), my income (£1,600) would prevent me from being able to obtain UK benefits - simply put I do not need money from the government for either rent or food.

 

So explain to me exactly WHY I should not be able to bring my Thai wife to the UK when I need nothing from anyone ? 

 

IF - and I say IF - you do NOT own your house and need to pay £20,000 a year in rent, then I totally agree with you. A blanket ban on all those that do not need hand-outs is just plain idiotic !

 

This really would not stop me taking my wife in say 7 years to the UK anyhow - it was always my plan to sell my rubbishy old  UK 2 bed southern council house and buy some 4 bed detached property up north and put 100k in the bank to sponsor the wife.

 

That said, I am really thinking about getting her go there on a holiday and claim asylum - will take 5 years up for them to process her and all her appeals and by that time she'll probably be able to claim she is my carer too as i'll be in my 70's !

 

 

@RichardColeman I quite agree with what you say, especially your first sentence!

 

There is a "however" though. I have NOT looked this up to confirm, but there used to be an alternative for those, like yourself, who are not earning but are financially "comfortable".  

That was the option to show one's savings instead of income. So if you have, as you say, minimal outgoings, but own a property outright, have savings and basically "do not need hand-outs"  that may, or rather should be, a route.

Edited December 11, 2023 by VBF
context

[RayC]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Name me a country that gives the same rights to non nationals as to nationals. 

 

When I lived in Belgium, apart from being ineligible to serve in the Belgian state institutions and stand/vote in national elections, I can't think of any additional rights denied to me which were granted to native-born Belgians. 

 

Imo I should have been allowed to vote but, other than that, I'd say that I was treated very equitably. 

[RayC]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

The sense of entitlement is astounding. 

 

The promotion of discrimination is overwhelming.

[UKresonant]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Correct.

 

Thanks to the financial requirements that you are objecting to.

 

It seems you agree that there should be financial requirements but as soon as they extend beyond the point that YOU can meet them they become unacceptable. 

Yes I object as well as I can no longer meet the threshold, in the short term from passive income.  My assumption was it would be indexed at somepoint. 

It's loss of face, I cannot meet the level set now by my country, partly due to the needs of my son who is with me in the UK. I'm the poor UK element of the family as portrait by my own government. Westminster politicians are so engrossed in there political hobby,  no thought of common good, negative policies such as frozen pensions if in Thailand, and "well get rid of non-dom status" from the already very arrogant tax system. It's like when you go somewhere and there is very bad service experience, and think do these people never think of adopting better practice and ideas offered by others. Rather than, negative, inefficient,  inward looking, in political circles theme, which more and more people do not feel any strong association with.

Perhaps the Thai embassy shall request a bank statement showing 1.7 million Baht on e-visa from the spring of 2024?

 

 

[RayC]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 Non British nationals cannot expect to have the same rights in Britain as British nationals.

 

Institutionally discriminating against a certain group in society. Doesn't history illustrate the dangers in doing that?

[James105]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

Institutionally discriminating against a certain group in society. Doesn't history illustrate the dangers in doing that?

 

Does it really?   Should the Thai's be worried then about the fact that non Thai's do not have the same rights as their citizens here?   

[Bangkok Barry]

18 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

When I lived in Belgium, apart from being ineligible to serve in the Belgian state institutions and stand/vote in national elections, I can't think of any additional rights denied to me which were granted to native-born Belgians. 

 

Imo I should have been allowed to vote but, other than that, I'd say that I was treated very equitably. 

My sister lived in Spain and WAS allowed to vote in local elections. Makes sense, as what happened there affected her as much as the locals.

[Bangkok Barry]

There should be a clause that removes those with a UK passport from needing to meet the financial requirement. Otherwise, you are blocked from living there with a wife born overseas while at the same time those with a British wife are allowed to live there with a far lower income. Citizens should never, ever, for any reason be blocked from living in their own country, especially on the flimsiest of reasons that their wife was born outside of the UK so on that basis you must earn more than a reported 75% of those in the UK.

[impulse]

On the humanitarian side, native born overweight, unattractive women with a bad personality will see their romance prospects improve significantly.

 

After all, they need luv, too.

 

Still, I wonder how many natives will be affected vs the number of transplants who have anchored themselves, all along planning to send for their wife and 6 kids.

 

[thecyclist]

The right and very first question to ask wouldbe, why are there still hard working Brits who make less than this. Possibly to ensure that the billionaires stay super rich or increase their share of the pie. 

Let's make it illegal for anyone earning more than 10 mil to marry and have sex.they and their lackeys in government can get their kicks out of counting their cash.

 

 

[RayC]

3 hours ago, Doctor Tom said:

They are unaffected by the new rules 

 

You're right. My mistake. They are excluded. However, in my defence I interpreted your original post as a proposition which should apply universally.

Edited December 11, 2023 by RayC
Clarification