Britain Raises Marriage Visa Age To Stem Abuse

[Loaded]

Britain has raised the age at which foreigners can apply for a marriage visa to enter the country, to clamp down on forced weddings and immigration abuse, a minister said Tuesday. The age will rise from 18 to 21 at the end of November, said immigration minister Phil Woolas. From then both partners in a marriage will have to be at least 21.

"It is important that we protect vulnerable young people and this measure will help avoid exploitation," he said, while the Home Office described the move as "the biggest shake-up to immigration and border security in 45 years."

Opposition Liberal Democrats welcomed the move, but their home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said other steps were needed.

"The increase in age limits for marriage visas is a welcome defence against abuses such as forced marriage. But we must also give more help to legitimate spouses to learn English so they can play a full part in society," he said.

[Mario2008]

Will have to see if it will stand up in court.

[Loaded]

I think it's a good move. A lot of Asian under graduate students study in the UK with the intention of finding an idiot to marry in order to get a passport.

[Mario2008]

I believe the Netherlands has now a similar law, but it only is for non-EU foreigners residing in the Netherlands wanting to marry another non-EU foreigner who doesn't reside in the Nehterlands. There seems to be a need for this kind of legislation, but I doubt if it is legal in the case of a national wanting to marry a foreign national and if the European Court of Justice will allow it.

[yaketyak]

How absurd !!

Millions of Britons have got married at 18 (and earlier) because thay are in love , but now our dictatorial government has decided that if you fall in love with a foreigner thats hard luck. You have to wait until 21 to get married.

Why not make it 71? ... that should solve the problem for the govt.

[werbs]

i think its pretty clear what this rule is aimed at, its aimed at forced or arranged marriages, we all know where these type of marriages stem from and its aimed at closing this route into the UK. the government can not however stipulate against certain races so it has to be one rule for all.

all countries have immigration rules and if you want to live somewhere then you abide by them, i think some thai immigration rules are stupid but i have to abide by them to live here

[ClaytonSeymour]

all countries have immigration rules and if you want to live somewhere then you abide by them,

I agree, but, in this day and age, without raising the UK's age limit for marriage, I simply fail to see how this can stand up in the European Court Of Human Rights i.e. Mr Smith (70) from York marries Miss Jones (18) from Cardiff & live happily ever after, yet, Mr Brown (25) from London, marries Miss Wong (19) from Shanghai & they are prevented from being together.

I know who it's targeting & rightfully so, but it wont work; they'll merely force them to marry three years later. If it survives the various legal challenges, which I think is doubtful, it will be the indigenous population that are hurt most.

It's just another pathetic attempt by a government that has failed & continues to do miserably in all departments.

[7by7]

I simply fail to see how this can stand up in the European Court Of Human Rights

Article 8 is the relevent part of the European Convention on Human Rights

1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

As the UK's immigration rules are in accordance with the law etc. any appeal to the ECHR would almost certainly fail.

[werbs]

the government are not saying you can not marry, they are just saying to get into the uk you will have to pass certain tests, there are already tests that if you want to push to the extreme you could say they are against basic human rights, but these rules are there for a reason and this particular rule should have been brought in many years ago, along with no legal right to any form of benefits for immigrants until at least 5 years income taxes have been paid

[yaketyak]

quote from WERBS .. "the government are not saying you can not marry......"

No , but they are saying you cannot marry and come to the UK. So yes if you are a 20 year old Briton in a 2 year loving relationship with a 20 year old thai (for example), you have to uproot your life and go to marry abroad because you cannot here. Or just wait a year. And you think thats right and just do you Werbs?

[TexasRanger]

Thailand and the UK are equally guilty of ridiculous laws and regulations that keep married people apart or make it very difficult to be together. I despise these idiots and there stupid rules.

[werbs]

quote from WERBS .. "the government are not saying you can not marry......"

No , but they are saying you cannot marry and come to the UK. So yes if you are a 20 year old Briton in a 2 year loving relationship with a 20 year old thai (for example), you have to uproot your life and go to marry abroad because you cannot here. Or just wait a year. And you think thats right and just do you Werbs?

i am not saying it is right or wrong, but this rule has been made for a reason (40 year old south asians having arranged marriages to 16 year olds). with PC the way it is now it has to be across the board rather than aimed at one particular country.

Also we are not saying you can not live in the UK, we are saying you can't live there when you fulfill certain criteria and one of those crierias is being a certain age, I am sure there are also other criteria some will see as unfair. Do we not have to fulifill certain criteria for marriage visas here?

maybe we should do away with passports and just let people live wherever they want, all these rules and regulations can not be good

Edited November 6, 2008 by werbs

[cuddleypete]

Thailand and the UK are equally guilty of ridiculous laws and regulations that keep married people apart or make it very difficult to be together. I despise these idiots and there stupid rules.

I agree with what you say ,why do the thai and uk goverment make it so hard for everyone who falls in love ??? it is different if you fall in love in the uk or ecu ,but as soon as outside the uk and ecu someone tells you what and when you can do.

[Loaded]

But it will also catch SE Asian female students who go to the UK with the intention of finding and marrying a Brit in order to obtain a passport. The UK government has, I believe, already blocked foreigners marrying Brits while on a student visa and this will close a further loophole.

My wife studied in the UK before returning to Thailand. She met me here. She studied with female Chinese. Malaysian and Thai students who were focused on getting married in order to get a passport. I personally know one dumb farang who married one of these 'students'; he's now divorced and penniless while she's receiving cash from the British taxpayer and having a great time now she's hardwired into the UK benefit's system.

[yaketyak]

But it will also catch SE Asian female students who go to the UK with the intention of finding and marrying a Brit in order to obtain a passport. The UK government has, I believe, already blocked foreigners marrying Brits while on a student visa and this will close a further loophole.

My wife studied in the UK before returning to Thailand. She met me here. She studied with female Chinese. Malaysian and Thai students who were focused on getting married in order to get a passport. I personally know one dumb farang who married one of these 'students'; he's now divorced and penniless while she's receiving cash from the British taxpayer and having a great time now she's hardwired into the UK benefit's system.

Big deal. So a few people come to the UK and try to get a husband. So what? How much does that cost the taxpayer each year? Almost zilch in the scheme of things. And because of it genuine couples cannot marry here until they are 21 (so its allright for 21 year olds to come here with the deliberate intention of marrying then?) Absurd.

Bit like saying lets hang all those accused of murder in the knowledge that some of them will have been guilty. To the other innocents well....its hard luck.

I'm not having a go at you specifically Loaded , but there are already enough controls in place when applicants apply for a visa. Laws should not be introduced that penalise genuine couples just to catch a meaninglessly small number of so-called guilty (you could say cleaver) ones.

If the govt really wanted to save meaningful sums of money how about stop paying layabouts to have tons of kids which i as a taxpayer am expected to pay for. (why do i have to pay anyway for other peoples choice to have kids? ... beats me). Or pull all our troops out of foreign parts of the world where we are butting into other countries business. Now those two measures would save REAL money.

[ClaytonSeymour]

i am not saying it is right or wrong, but this rule has been made for a reason (40 year old south asians having arranged marriages to 16 year olds). with PC the way it is now it has to be across the board rather than aimed at one particular country.

We all know who it's targeted at & it wont stop them, one way or the other, it will merely delay the realisation of their plans. As I've already said, it will likely hurt the indigenous ones, much more than it will hurt those of South Asian descent. Too little too late, if they want to really address the problem then political correctness needs to be thrown where it belongs - in the garbage bin.

If the govt really wanted to save meaningful sums of money how about stop paying layabouts to have tons of kids which i as a taxpayer am expected to pay for. (why do i have to pay anyway for other peoples choice to have kids? ... beats me).

Agreed, having children should be an earned privilege - not a right. Compulsory abortion for single teenage mums would be a good start.

[Mossfinn]

And how is the majority of this thread related to Immigration apart from the first post and certain subsequent responses.

You are all throwing in opinions that are neither helpful, nor have any bearing on the Gov't decision making ability, you are just blustering and grand standing to the detriment of this sub-forum as a whole.

Add in the obviously ignorant statements that are so puirile in nature that I find it hard to comprehend.

Moss

[yaketyak]

And how is the majority of this thread related to Immigration apart from the first post and certain subsequent responses.

You are all throwing in opinions that are neither helpful, nor have any bearing on the Gov't decision making ability, you are just blustering and grand standing to the detriment of this sub-forum as a whole.

Add in the obviously ignorant statements that are so puirile in nature that I find it hard to comprehend.

Moss

Well your contribution to it is hardly valuable is it? ONE post critiscising others who have bothered to reply . And most of the replies are on-topic... we have discussed whether we approve or not and our reasons for it. Thats called on-topic. You didn't contribute at all.

Yes it drifted a LITTLE off topic as most threads do including many you have been involved in.

I expect my comment on not paying people to have kids bothered you .. i wonder if you are one of the recipients of child benefit??.. hence your annoyance!! Might explain your sulky post.

Really Moss , i expected more from a seasoned Thaivisa player as you.

[Mossfinn]

Believe it or not, my old friend, I was not directing it entirely at you, but I see you have lost none of your defensiveness

Moss

[Mossfinn]

If the govt really wanted to save meaningful sums of money how about stop paying layabouts to have tons of kids which i as a taxpayer am expected to pay for. (why do i have to pay anyway for other peoples choice to have kids? ... beats me).

Because people with children not only pay taxes, but in time their children will pay taxes, to pay for for the hospital care you will receive, or the roads you will drive upon, or the police that protect your Hearth & Home, if I need to go on about the requirement for future economics, of the need of procreation, then perhaps this should be carried out on another board or in General, not here.

Or pull all our troops out of foreign parts of the world where we are butting into other countries business. Now those two measures would save REAL money.

Immigration matters, I think not, but I could question, was it right to keep troops in Belize, Northern Ireland and the DRC, but then Immigration matters, again I think not.

We all know who it's targeted at & it wont stop them, one way or the other, it will merely delay the realisation of their plans. As I've already said, it will likely hurt the indigenous ones, much more than it will hurt those of South Asian descent. Too little too late, if they want to really address the problem then political correctness needs to be thrown where it belongs - in the garbage bin.

Yup, spot on, ole Clayton hits Immigration, we are all saved.

Compulsory abortion for single teenage mums would be a good start.

How about single mums in their 20's, how about 30's, hmmmm.

And how is the majority of this thread related to Immigration apart from the first post and certain subsequent responses.

You are all throwing in opinions that are neither helpful, nor have any bearing on the Gov't decision making ability, you are just blustering and grand standing to the detriment of this sub-forum as a whole.

Add in the obviously ignorant statements that are so puirile in nature that I find it hard to comprehend.

I stand by this statement, Werbs has tried to hold it together, but has been swamped by irrelevant posts, including mine in response to nonsense.

Well your contribution to it is hardly valuable is it? ONE post critiscising others who have bothered to reply .

Depends on your point of view.

nd most of the replies are on-topic... we have discussed whether we approve or not and our reasons for it. Thats called on-topic. You didn't contribute at all.

Well that is a matter of opinion and now I have.

Yes it drifted a LITTLE off topic as most threads do including many you have been involved in.

Rules on marriage, troops in other countries, state sponsored abortion, etc

I'd say

I expect my comment on not paying people to have kids bothered you ..

TBH, it hadn't crossed my mind, just ignorant rhetoric as ever

i wonder if you are one of the recipients of child benefit??

Yup, a beautiful boy, you wanna see a pic. Have you received any hospital treatment, your partner any immigration service or protection from police or armed forces in the past that I have helped contribute toward.

As this has nothing to do with Immigration, and with Claytons involvement and with the usual handbags at dawn I will retreat and say no more.

Good Luck to all

Moss

[Ollie]

I agree with the change in rules. Okay, it will hit a small percentage from LOS, but as stated elsewhere, the main issue is the sub-continent and the practice of arranged marriages of very young women being shipped to the UK often for a life of misery.

I would go further and from the area ban all arranged marriages of 2nd of more generations that have settled in the UK. There's no need and it's purely a culteral thing to do with village/clans/castes in the sub-continent. Arranged marriages regularly happen betwen UK based families now - that's fairer for all than those arranged from some obscure corner of the sub-continent.

By the by, I thought mods ran these sub-fora?

[ClaytonSeymour]

I agree with the change in rules. Okay, it will hit a small percentage from LOS, but as stated elsewhere, the main issue is the sub-continent and the practice of arranged marriages of very young women being shipped to the UK often for a life of misery.

I would go further and from the area ban all arranged marriages of 2nd of more generations that have settled in the UK. There's no need and it's purely a culteral thing to do with village/clans/castes in the sub-continent. Arranged marriages regularly happen betwen UK based families now - that's fairer for all than those arranged from some obscure corner of the sub-continent.

By the by, I thought mods ran these sub-fora?

Whilst I agree with your comments re: the sub-continent, this isn't the solution - these people are very patient & I assure you it merely means that the women you speak of will find their life of misery commencing at a later date.

On another note, it will do nothing to stem the influx from Eastern Europe, who'll be untouched by this legislation. I'm curious to learn if this legislation would prevent an EU national from another member state marrying their teenage bride from outside the EU then coming to live in the UK with her? Perhaps someone could clarify this?

It's essentially just another desperate attempt to regain popularity by a governing party that has failed the electorate miserably.

Edited November 8, 2008 by ClaytonSeymour

[ClaytonSeymour]

Compulsory abortion for single teenage mums would be a good start.

How about single mums in their 20's, how about 30's, hmmmm.

Yes indeed, how about these single mums? They're certainly not off my radar. I'd suggest introducing a 'license', score them on certain criteria & those who fail to hit the target - deny them the license & the right to breed. In the case of couples - score both parents.

I'd love to discuss this with you further, but, it certainly would be way off topic, so the above comments are my final ones.

[yaketyak]

Despite child-benefit receiving Moss taking an unusual amount of time (for him) to condescend to reply to our posts , he has astutely avoided tackling the issue here by issuing insults to all and sundry . The issue which we were quite adequately discussing before he burst in with his insults is whether its right that many genuine relationships will suffer so the govt can raise the age limit to 21 before someone can get a marriage visa .

I don't think its right . For a start what about forced marriages of people aged 21 and over? Why stop at 21.. its an arbitary figure. Why not 22? or 20? whats the differance?

Also where is there any provision for those aged under 21 who are perfectly genuine and want to come here to get married? There is no provision , they are just sidelined. I don't think thats right. Millions of British people get married aged well under 21 and their relationships are as genuine and long lasting as any other. So this is plain discrimination against one section of people so a few forced marriages of those under 21 (which for some reason is deemed worse than 21 and over.. why?) can be prevented.

So Moss i am exercising my right to say this on a public forum in an on-topic reply to the original post.

If you agree (unlikely as you never agree with me out of principle anyway) say so , if you don't.. say so. If you prefer to stay out of it ... fine. But don't make personal insulting posts PLEASE... you are better than that.

[yaketyak]

" and with the usual handbags at dawn I will retreat and say no more."

Hopefully thats a promise he'll keep

[benjamat]

Britain has raised the age at which foreigners can apply for a marriage visa to enter the country, to clamp down on forced weddings and immigration abuse, a minister said Tuesday. The age will rise from 18 to 21 at the end of November, said immigration minister Phil Woolas. From then both partners in a marriage will have to be at least 21.

"It is important that we protect vulnerable young people and this measure will help avoid exploitation," he said, while the Home Office described the move as "the biggest shake-up to immigration and border security in 45 years."

Opposition Liberal Democrats welcomed the move, but their home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said other steps were needed.

"The increase in age limits for marriage visas is a welcome defence against abuses such as forced marriage. But we must also give more help to legitimate spouses to learn English so they can play a full part in society," he said.

Whilst the move seems sensible to many as a protection against exploitation, both from the point of view of immigrants and forced labour, it also damages many perfectly genuine people.

These quoted changes in the law claiming biggest shake up in 45 years is simply yet more smoke and mirrors politics from this discredited government. These moves in total only affect around 15% of immigration to the UK and they actually impact the people who in most cases are the most deserving of compassion. 85% of immigration comes from the EU and other special countries, these people can still come and go at will and claim benefits immediately they arrive. The government of course does not say this in the press releases. (immigrants from outside the EU cannot claim benefits on arrival as believed by many)

All this is simply yet another attempt by the Govt to garner more "sun headlines" and appeal to the less savoury side of the uk electorate. In 2007 more people left the uk than arrived but of course you dont see this.

[snuggzzz]

I agree Benjemat, anyone from an EU Country can settle here with their wife and children, plus many other Countries outside the EU given Passports, I think, some in excess 100 Countries were 'assisted in this' by previous UK Govts. they also have the right to Benefits and housing.

The HMRC have more powers than perhaps is known. Just to say an Englishman in his 60's married a Chinese Doctor, given a work permit to work as a Nurse. She lived next door to him,I think she was aged 37 or so. A High Court Judge on hearing an Appeal,the case initially bought by the HMRC, appealed by the husband after her enforced return to China, The Judge rejected the Appeal, stating the 'age difference' made up an important part.

In conclusion, I felt that there was more to the story, but the main point is, if you are thought to be 'pulling the wool over HMRC', please don't it could cost you, both financially and emotionally.

There is a real wave of abbhorence against paedophilia in the UK. There are agencies, Police and Social Services all looking out for offenders, report on helplines etc. We all know that Thai girls / women look far younger than they actually are...!!!! One final point......These anomolies.......???

MP's and distinguished members of the House of Lords in the UK, did bring down the age of sexual consent for males to 16 years of age, but I must say, that there weren't many 16 year old young men on that march.

Wait until theyr'e 21 years old...........................!!!!!!!

[Mossfinn]

Hopefully thats a promise he'll keep

C'mon, you know me better than that.

Despite child-benefit receiving Moss taking an unusual amount of time (for him) to condescend to reply to our posts

Oh, come on, don't attack me because I receive legally administered support, although the condescending part was bang on.

by issuing insults to all and sundry

All, absolutely not, sundry, quite possibly.

. The issue which we were quite adequately discussing before he burst in with his insults is whether its right that many genuine relationships will suffer so the govt can raise the age limit to 21 before someone can get a marriage visa .

There were not that many insults, surely!

I don't think its right . For a start what about forced marriages of people aged 21 and over?

Why stop at 21.. its an arbitary figure. Why not 22? or 20? whats the differance?

Also where is there any provision for those aged under 21 who are perfectly genuine and want to come here to get married? There is no provision , they are just sidelined. I don't think thats right. Millions of British people get married aged well under 21 and their relationships are as genuine and long lasting as any other. So this is plain discrimination against one section of people so a few forced marriages of those under 21 (which for some reason is deemed worse than 21 and over.. why?) can be prevented.

I accept these are on topic, but when they drift to absolute nonsense, I feel this is not the forum, but as you say, we all have differing opinions.

If you prefer to stay out of it ... fine. But don't make personal insulting posts PLEASE

OK, I wont, but they were not that personal to you, Clayton perhaps, but not you.

So Moss i am exercising my right to say this on a public forum in an on-topic reply to the original post.

If you agree (unlikely as you never agree with me out of principle anyway) say so , if you don't.. say so.

C'mon, my old friend, I have supported you in the past, even put in a word on your behalf, OK you never knew that, but principle no, if I agree with you, I will state it as so.

However, no one has posted a link, so I will read the whole change in the rules and give you the benefit of my wisdom, how about that.

Moss

[yaketyak]

Having read Moss's above post it has left me feeling rather humbled. (yes i can be humble )

Although i often disagree with him he is undoubtably a gent...

so hats off to you Moss .. you have diffused the situation better than i could have done

[tlusername]

"UK sponsors will be required to register their intention to marry overseas before leaving the UK"

So now I have to go and 'register' like a fricking pedophile with the home office before marrying someone from overseas as I am now considered as fitting a group ear marked as containing potential abusers of young girls through forced marriage and all because of some rare incidences that occur outside of what is the very far from mainstream English culture.

I find this quite offensive. In my case we are both over 21 so why the need to register? I thought this was about age?

By all means crack down on the injustices that occur in this area, but don't paint everyone with the same brush.

All this just adds foder to my desire to go expat again as soon as I can (hopefully before we are all carrying id cards and being tracked on a national database).