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

[RayC]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

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. 

 

Yep it's ridiculous that someone should consider it an entitlement to be able to live with their partner and kids.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

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

 

The group being non nationals? Don't be absurd.

 

You think you have the same rights as a Thai in Thailand?

 

The same rights as a Nigerian in Nigeria?

 

The same rights as a Korean in Korea?

 

You are trolling at this point. 

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Yep it's ridiculous that someone should consider it an entitlement to be able to live with their partner and kids.

 

They can live with them. If they wish to live with them in the uk they have to meet uk visa requirements. 

 

Knocking someone up doesn't guarantee visa status, thankfully.

[RayC]

4 hours 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. 

 

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. 

 

You seem to assume that anyone wishing to immigrate to the UK or, perish the thought, bring their partner and family with them is a ne'er do well who is on the make.

 

Why would an increase in illegal mitigation have anything to do with legal mitigation?

[JonnyF]

Just now, RayC said:

 

You seem to assume that anyone wishing to immigrate to the UK or, perish the thought, bring their partner and family with them is a ne'er do well who is on the make.

 

Why would an increase in illegal mitigation have anything to do with legal mitigation?

 

I dont assume anything. If they can support their family without taxpayer handouts let them prove it.

 

I'm not sure what mitigation has to do with anything.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

 

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?   

 

Maybe they should be. As I said in a previous post I don't condone the discrimination which exists in Thailand but that means that we should ape it in the UK.

 

For a supposedly enlightened country, it's becoming increasingly dark in the UK.

[cleopatra2]

22 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The group being non nationals? Don't be absurd.

 

You think you have the same rights as a Thai in Thailand?

 

The same rights as a Nigerian in Nigeria?

 

The same rights as a Korean in Korea?

 

You are trolling at this point. 

British Nationals are being discriminated against.

For examlple , women , young workers , and the disabled are group of workers that are likely to be on the lower end of pay.

[RayC]

20 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The group being non nationals? Don't be absurd.

 

You think you have the same rights as a Thai in Thailand?

 

The same rights as a Nigerian in Nigeria?

 

The same rights as a Korean in Korea?

 

You are trolling at this point. 

 

You're being absurd by suggesting that I'm trolling.

 

The answer to each of your question is 'No' but that doesn't mean it is morally right. 

 

What level of discrimination against non-nationals do you consider acceptable?

[RichardColeman]

2 hours ago, VBF said:

@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.

I am fully aware of this and would have been using the combined method anyhow, I think under the old law I would need to have only about £5,000 in the bank as my income would have been near to the 18k, all that will happen now is having to show about 70k and my income. It's a pain but doable.

 

The whole thing is wrong. I can actually agree somewhat with the 38k BUT, it needs to be split into deductible income and spare income. As said if I am spending 20k on rent - quite low in the SE - then I only have £18 to live on - but still enough. The amount for people owning their own (paid) homes should be reduced to by 20k to cover the non payment of rent or mortgage. I would say that if you have an reasonable income and can show you have equity in your house (my case 360-380k) then that asset should count towards the amount required - hell, even asking people to put up their house as collateral would be OK for most !

 

[RayC]

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

They can live with them. If they wish to live with them in the uk they have to meet uk visa requirements. 

 

And that is the problem. The UK visa requirements are morally repugnant.

 

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Knocking someone up doesn't guarantee visa status, thankfully.

 

I doubt that if the UK were to relax its' visa requirements that the birth rate in the developing world would increase dramatically.

[Doctor Tom]

43 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

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

I didn't know either, It was pointed out in a later post 

[brewsterbudgen]

10 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

I am fully aware of this and would have been using the combined method anyhow, I think under the old law I would need to have only about £5,000 in the bank as my income would have been near to the 18k, all that will happen now is having to show about 70k and my income. It's a pain but doable.

 

The whole thing is wrong. I can actually agree somewhat with the 38k BUT, it needs to be split into deductible income and spare income. As said if I am spending 20k on rent - quite low in the SE - then I only have £18 to live on - but still enough. The amount for people owning their own (paid) homes should be reduced to by 20k to cover the non payment of rent or mortgage. I would say that if you have an reasonable income and can show you have equity in your house (my case 360-380k) then that asset should count towards the amount required - hell, even asking people to put up their house as collateral would be OK for most !

 

Has it been confirmed that the savings requirement is also being doubled (currently £62,500)?

[youreavinalaff]

4 hours ago, Doctor Tom said:

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.  

Nice to know you consider nurses as low life.

 

Takes one to know, I guess.

 

 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

I dont assume anything. If they can support their family without taxpayer handouts let them prove it.

 

Let's return to basics.

 

In your rush to curb immigration, you miss the main reason for it: Immigrants are needed to provide labour which the UK is unable to source locally.

 

One estimate suggests that this  proposed legislation will cut applications by 300,000. Great for the numbers but it does beg the question, who will do the work?

 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

I'm not sure what mitigation has to do with anything.

 

How about answering this one then? 

Why would an increase in illegal migration have anything to do with legal migration?

[Doctor Tom]

25 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Nice to know you consider nurses as low life.

 

Takes one to know, I guess.

 

 

Nurses are low earners , I never said they were low life's. .  The low life's are those who pose here as wealthy. only for their poor victims to find out that they are the opposite of that in the UK.  Do try to read what is written before you resort to the keyboard.  

[hotandsticky]

13 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

Nurses are low earners , I never said they were low life's. .  The low life's are those who pose here as wealthy. only for their poor victims to find out that they are the opposite of that in the UK.  Do try to read what is written before you resort to the keyboard.  

 

 

So, are you saying we don't need nurses?

 

"The low life's are those who pose here as wealthy"...................this is a VERY small minority of sponsors who take partners back to the UK. Even living in a council house in Ipswich is considered highly preferable to munching rice in Isaan.

[youreavinalaff]

27 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

Nurses are low earners , I never said they were low life's. .  The low life's are those who pose here as wealthy. only for their poor victims to find out that they are the opposite of that in the UK.  Do try to read what is written before you resort to the keyboard.  

I did read what you wrote.

 

Who are victims?

 

Even now the " low lifes (no apostrophe)" you speak of need a fixed address and a job with a salary of £18600 for at least 6 months prior to application. They also need to maintain that salary for future applications. 

 

I'm confused how you define "low life" as you now say it has nothing to do with salary.

 

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Yep it's ridiculous that someone should consider it an entitlement to be able to live with their partner and kids.

 

It's only an entitlement if they are not British.

[Mr Meeseeks]

47 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

So, are you saying we don't need nurses?

 

Qualified health professionals, including nurses, have different visa requirements and are not affected by the changes in the requirements being discussed.

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

Qualified health professionals, including nurses, have different visa requirements and are not affected by the changes in the requirements being discussed.

Thats already been covered in this discussion.

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

3 hours ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

So, are you saying we don't need nurses?

 

"The low life's are those who pose here as wealthy"...................this is a VERY small minority of sponsors who take partners back to the UK. Even living in a council house in Ipswich is considered highly preferable to munching rice in Isaan.

Not if it's sticky rice with somtam. 😃😃

[JonnyF]

10 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

Qualified health professionals, including nurses, have different visa requirements and are not affected by the changes in the requirements being discussed.

 

Yep and rightly so. Areas where the UK has a shortage in the workforce should have rules to enocourage the skills we need. We should have a points system like Australia's. People need to realize that the UK is not a charity and foreign nationals are not automatically entitled to live there. 

 

Australia just announced they are also cracking down by the way. I guess they are all evil bigoted racists as well... 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-67609963

 

 

Well done Australia. Looking after the interests of their own citizens. The UK should take note.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yep and rightly so. Areas where the UK has a shortage in the workforce should have rules to enocourage the skills we need. We should have a points system like Australia's. People need to realize that the UK is not a charity and foreign nationals are not automatically entitled to live there. 

 

Australia just announced they are also cracking down by the way. I guess they are all evil bigoted racists as well... 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-67609963

 

 

Well done Australia. Looking after the interests of their own citizens. The UK should take note.

 

 

In Australia, about five years ago, an investigation into the 457 skilled worker visa (which had a pathway to permanent residency), found tens of thousands of Indians and Philippinos working in fast food establishments on that visa class.

 

It was immediately scrapped and a Temporary Skills Shortage visa introduced. 

[Mr Meeseeks]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

People need to realize that the UK is not a charity and foreign nationals are not automatically entitled to live there. 

 

A fact some here are struggling to get their head around it seems. 

[Mr Meeseeks]

9 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Thats already been covered in this discussion.

 

Needed to be reiterated, and probably will again later on in the thread. 

[RayC]

8 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

In Australia, about five years ago, an investigation into the 457 skilled worker visa (which had a pathway to permanent residency), found tens of thousands of Indians and Philippinos working in fast food establishments on that visa class.

 

It was immediately scrapped and a Temporary Skills Shortage visa introduced. 

 

"Tens of thousands"!!! Was there anybody apart from illegal Indians and Philipinos working in the Australian fast-food sector at the time?

 

On the positive side, at least, the Australian government were able to put the correct visa stamp in tens of thousands of Indian and Filipino passports.

[Mr Meeseeks]

29 minutes ago, RayC said:

On the positive side, at least, the Australian government were able to put the correct visa stamp in tens of thousands of Indian and Filipino passports.

 

457 visas do not normally get a stamp in the passport, unless you request one. 

[RayC]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yep and rightly so. Areas where the UK has a shortage in the workforce should have rules to enocourage the skills we need. We should have a points system like Australia's. People need to realize that the UK is not a charity and foreign nationals are not automatically entitled to live there. 

 

Australia just announced they are also cracking down by the way. I guess they are all evil bigoted racists as well... 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-67609963

 

 

Well done Australia. Looking after the interests of their own citizens. The UK should take note.

 

 

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yep and rightly so. Areas where the UK has a shortage in the workforce should have rules to enocourage the skills we need. We should have a points system like Australia's. People need to realize that the UK is not a charity and foreign nationals are not automatically entitled to live there. 

 

Australia just announced they are also cracking down by the way. I guess they are all evil bigoted racists as well... 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-67609963

 

 

Well done Australia. Looking after the interests of their own citizens. The UK should take note.

 

 

I doubt that anyone in their right mind is under the illusion that the UK is a charity.

 

The UK already has a points-based immigration system. I don't know how closely it aligns with the Australian system.

 

I imagine that the vast majority of Australians are thoroughly decent individuals. However, just like the UK, there are almost certainly also a number of evil, bigoted racists as well.

[JonnyF]

46 minutes ago, RayC said:

I doubt that anyone in their right mind is under the illusion that the UK is a charity.

 

Well from this thread it seems some people feel that non British nationals are entitled to the same treatment as British nationals while in Britain. They feel that non nationals are also entitled to permanent residency in Britain no matter what they bring to the table. 

 

46 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The UK already has a points-based immigration system. I don't know how closely it aligns with the Australian system.

 

I imagine that the vast majority of Australians are thoroughly decent individuals. However, just like the UK, there are almost certainly also a number of evil, bigoted racists as well.

 

Yes, as with every country. A minority of bad people is inevitable in every demographic. Just as you will get real racists and bigots, you will also get people who throw those labels at others simply because they have a different point of view to them and are unable to debate in a reasoned, civilized manner. 

[youreavinalaff]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yep and rightly so. Areas where the UK has a shortage in the workforce should have rules to enocourage the skills we need. We should have a points system like Australia's. People need to realize that the UK is not a charity and foreign nationals are not automatically entitled to live there. 

 

Australia just announced they are also cracking down by the way. I guess they are all evil bigoted racists as well... 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-67609963

 

 

Well done Australia. Looking after the interests of their own citizens. The UK should take note.

 

My wife works as a health care and support worker. One of the careers that are exempt from the the new rules.

 

Surely that means she can get ILR by being my wife with £18600 salary.