Changes Proposed To Uk Spouse Visa Rules

[StreetCowboy]

I still think we should just let anyone live anywhere they like.

Welfare is the problem, and the cure is to get rid of welfare for everyone.

Free health care, yep give it to everyone, but make it really shitty, so everyone pays private.

I would like to agree with you; I have suffered as much as the next man from artificial constraints on immigration; but without those constraints we would have anarchy. Wealthy cities such as Hong Kong and Singapore and London would be inundated with squatters - look at relatively wealthy cities like Bankok or Rio de Janeiro; imagine if there was no constraint whatsoever on the Burmese or Lao immigrants?

And people differ on what is an acceptable minimum for health care; further, others believe that health care can be provided more effectively as a service by the state than as a private enterprise, whether charitable or profitable. The best health care my family ever enjoyed was in HK, both comfortable (private) and efficient (public).

SC

EDIT: Typo corrected

Edited November 20, 2011 by StreetCowboy

[phutoie2]

Totser, there are those, like yourself, presenting reasoned arguments for controlling immigration to the UK.

There are others who are displaying their ignorance and prejudices.

Not too difficult to work out which group my, and Samran's, remarks are directed at, surely?

For a minute I wondered if I was reading the Archbishop of Canterbury's web page, Who are you and Samran to judge ignorance.

Clearly you have zil knowledge on the requirements to serve in the British Armed Forces, one of my favourite outbursts as a Sgt Major was the quaint phrase of "not knowing ones ar** from ones elbow", 36,000 Thai's live & work in London, I'm fe*king living here, deal with it.

[7by7]

You obviously are ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant!

Dictionary.com

ig·no·rant

1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.

2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics

3. uninformed; unaware.

4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

I have no problem with immigrants, Thai or otherwise, living in the UK or elsewhere, so don't have to 'deal with it.'

My father served in the RAF from 1939 to 1946 and my mother in the Army from 1939 to 1944. So whilst I have no personal experience I am not entirely ignorant of that area.

Not that it's got anything to do with this topic; but then not many posts have!

[elliss]

Since 2001, 388 British military personnel have died serving in Afghanistan. If you look here you will see that quite a few of them have black or brown faces; the children or grandchildren of immigrants to the UK.

If you are one of those posters, shame on you.

ex uk armed forces are now entitled to preferancial treatment on the uk housing lists ,{whatever their colour ],

and rightly so . i am sure the vast majority of british citizens, are in agreement , with this .

the issue is , immigration was a open flood gate into britain,

now the gate is closing slightly , and it is also effecting ex- pats

returning to uk , with their foreign partners/ wifes .

lifes not fair , and never will be.

:jap:

Edited November 20, 2011 by elliss

[MAJIC]

If I had a child that had emigrated to Asia, do you think that I would be allowed to enter their new country of abode to live there for the rest of my life, all the while getting free medical treatment and welfare benefits? Of course I wouldn't, so why do Britain's rulers think they should extend that courtesy to all the Asians that immigrate on family visas?

So, what does happen to society when you don't offer medical care to those that never contributed- probably ends up like Asian countries, and fair enough too.

Are you one of those bleeding heart liberals that think tax payers should go out to work to support the dead wood?

Everyone from Europe, America, Canada, Australia & New Zealand is let in to the UK with little or no constraints.

So why not let everyone else in as well?

They have already let everyone else in,they are called Illegal Immigrants and Asylum Seekers,and plus the unknown amount,that have never been counted into the Country, or out either!

[samran]

Totser, there are those, like yourself, presenting reasoned arguments for controlling immigration to the UK.

There are others who are displaying their ignorance and prejudices.

Not too difficult to work out which group my, and Samran's, remarks are directed at, surely?

Who are you and Samran to judge ignorance.

Not judging ignorance. Just pointing out hypocracy.

[samran]

If I had a child that had emigrated to Asia, do you think that I would be allowed to enter their new country of abode to live there for the rest of my life, all the while getting free medical treatment and welfare benefits? Of course I wouldn't, so why do Britain's rulers think they should extend that courtesy to all the Asians that immigrate on family visas?

So, what does happen to society when you don't offer medical care to those that never contributed- probably ends up like Asian countries, and fair enough too.

Are you one of those bleeding heart liberals that think tax payers should go out to work to support the dead wood?

Everyone from Europe, America, Canada, Australia & New Zealand is let in to the UK with little or no constraints.

So why not let everyone else in as well?

They have already let everyone else in,they are called Illegal Immigrants and Asylum Seekers,and plus the unknown amount,that have never been counted into the Country, or out either!

A bit like the thousands of farang visa runners I guess. Come here, stay as they long as they want, pay 500 quid at the airport for a year long overstay and come back on the next plane. Taking the p!ss out of the system aren't they?

Never get a proper visa, probably working illegally as unqualified English teachers. Setting up questionable company's to buy land illegally. Taking our women. Not learning to speak Thai. Dressing and acting inappropriately.

Taking over the place, I tell you. Thailand is going to the dogs with all these foreigners.

[7by7]

Everyone from Europe, America, Canada, Australia & New Zealand is let in to the UK with little or no constraints.

So why not let everyone else in as well?

All EEA nationals enjoy treaty rights covering freedom of movement within the EEA; this includes living and working; but as already explained it is not without restriction. Abolishing these treaty rights would be disastrous for the tens of thousands of British pensioners and other British nationals living in Spain, France, etc.

Nationals of European states who are not members of the EEA, e.g. Russia, Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders have to comply with the same immigration rules and requirements as all other non EEA nationals.

Certain nationalities are allowed in as visitors without obtaining a visa first, but are subject to the same visit rules as those who do; max stay of 6 months, employment prohibited etc.

All non-EEA nationals who want to live, work or study in the UK have to apply for the appropriate visa first and meet the same requirements; regardless of their nationality.

[ludditeman]

Everyone from Europe, America, Canada, Australia & New Zealand is let in to the UK with little or no constraints.

So why not let everyone else in as well?

All EEA nationals enjoy treaty rights covering freedom of movement within the EEA; this includes living and working; but as already explained it is not without restriction. Abolishing these treaty rights would be disastrous for the tens of thousands of British pensioners and other British nationals living in Spain, France, etc.

Why would it affect pensions or pensioners?

Pensions are dependent on NI contributions, not nationality.

[meatboy]

Everyone from Europe, America, Canada, Australia & New Zealand is let in to the UK with little or no constraints.

So why not let everyone else in as well?

All EEA nationals enjoy treaty rights covering freedom of movement within the EEA; this includes living and working; but as already explained it is not without restriction. Abolishing these treaty rights would be disastrous for the tens of thousands of British pensioners and other British nationals living in Spain, France, etc.

Why would it affect pensions or pensioners?

Pensions are dependent on NI contributions, not nationality.

agree with ludditeman but like we say in wales you cant educate mutton,5for 2against

[Totster]

Everyone from Europe, America, Canada, Australia & New Zealand is let in to the UK with little or no constraints.

So why not let everyone else in as well?

All EEA nationals enjoy treaty rights covering freedom of movement within the EEA; this includes living and working; but as already explained it is not without restriction. Abolishing these treaty rights would be disastrous for the tens of thousands of British pensioners and other British nationals living in Spain, France, etc.

Why would it affect pensions or pensioners?

Pensions are dependent on NI contributions, not nationality.

agree with ludditeman but like we say in wales you cant educate mutton,5for 2against

Another thing that is said in Wales is 'stand still and stop bleating'

totster

[meatboy]

yes-ie [yachi-da]:jap:

[thaibeachlovers]

But you've never paid your fair share of tax.

So you've obviously not contributed enough to all the public infrastucture you use. The roads, the bridges, the telephone and electrical cables. The water pipes. Sewers.That subsidised petrol you fill up your tank with. The government underwritten guarantees of the toll roads you use.

Not chicken feed amounts either.

Do you really think as a foreigner you'd be turned away from a public hospital if you were admitted? And it would be free, or if not, heavily subsidised - on the same basis as everyone else. And don't forget the tax dollars which paid to train all those doctors and nurses which look after you.

Not that you'd contribute to any of this, but you sure have no problem using all of it.

Being a bit OTT there Samran.

Many Thais never pay tax as they never earn enough, or they exist outside recognised employment ie hawkers etc. Are you saying they aren't entitled to use Thai infrastructure?

I never paid tax here, but I certainly put many hundreds of thousands of baht into Thailand, some of which ended up as tax. I certainly have no problem using the roads etc.

I certainly love your bare faced stinking hypocracy - highlighting a platry 'contribution' to Thailand as justification for your stay , yet summarily dismissing those back in the UK who do the same (or 'appear' to do so because they happen to have brown skin), yet you don't know yet feel fit to pass judgement on.

You convientently seperate out certain public services which you deem not to be important, yet rail against others do have the temerity to use others such as health care, despite the fact they are probably eligble for it anyway. At the end of the day, they are all public services. Provided by the government. And in your case you at least admit, you haven't even paid.

The sad thing is that you like to think that you are different to them. Fact is you are no different, in fact probably a little worse as many westerners in Thailand simply fail to integrate - an act which if done back in the UK would be another sign of 'the country going to the dogs'. Speak, read and write much Thai do we?

Anyway, I give up. Debating you blokes is like shooting fish in a barrel.

By all means, close this one 7by7.

What rubbish you are spouting.

I may not pay tax here but I have put more money into Thailand than many Thais pay in tax, so why should I not use the roads etc. By your logic, tourists should have to pay road tax before using a taxi or bus, which is ridiculous.

I don't have a car or mo'bike, so I don't get any of that subsidised petrol you're on about. If I want to go anywhere, I PAY a Thai to take me.

As for health care here, I pay for any medical or dental expenses. I don't get anything "on the taxpayer". So why should someone's aged parents be able to get into Britain and get free treatment without paying any tax in Britain, EVER. No wonder the NHS is broke!

What the hell does integrating with the ethnic population have to do with the subject of paying for services? Complete red herring.

Bottom line is I don't get anything in Thailand that I don't pay for, and I wouldn't expect to either. If you think I should pay to walk along the road ( because there isn't a pavement ) then you're a ..............!

[samran]

^^^

Pure convenient self justification in a dismal attempt to defend your decision to become an immigrant.

I wonder though if you've ever given the people who you are railing against the same opportunity to defend and explain themselves?

Probably not. But not unexpected either.

[trevorg]

^^^

Pure convenient self justification in a dismal attempt to defend your decision to become an immigrant.

I wonder though if you've ever given the people who you are railing against the same opportunity to defend and explain themselves?

Probably not. But not unexpected either.

Sorry Samran, but you are backing a loser on this one! Attempting to compare 'immigration' to Thailand with 'immigration' to the UK (or most of Western Europe/ NZ/Oz) is a non-starter!

I agree that 99% of ThaiVisa members are 'immigrants' to Thailand and I'm sure that 98% of them pay their way, some only just, but they do! Thailand has huge numbers of legal foreign workers (Burmese, Laos & Cambodian) that are here because they're cheap labour) - though I've heard recently, at rice harvest, some poor Thai labour can be had 20B cheaper per day.

Non EU immigration was so lax that 'yes your great-grandmother, her Ox and 16 servants were allowed to arrive by being sponsored by a British citizen'

EU immigration meant that the freedom of movement for anyone with an EU passport allowed anyone with such a document to be treated the same as any other EU citizen, although the rights and benefits vary country to country.

I could understand if each country had the same rights (to benefits, welfare and health care), this could work, but when a few countries have far better 'rights and services' it creates an imbalance - that has been taken advantage of by as many people who can - advised by employees of our successive governments. I don't have a problem with sharing my wealth to help those more in need than I. I do have a problem when I'm forced to share my wealth with people who have far more than I do and are 'milking' the system to the limit and beyond utilising their 'many' relatives - who they claimed that they would support and then didn't and used them to gain additional benefits.

As stated by other posters, I pay significantly more in to the Thai economy than I will ever receive back, I do it because I love my family!

[7by7]

Trevorg, you need to read an earlier post of mine. Your perception of both UK immigration law and EEA freedom of movement regulations are both very wrong.

As repeated many, many times; EEA nationals exercising a treaty right to live and work in another EEA state are

NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM PUBLIC FUNDS IN THEIR HOST STATE!!!

Except for those they have contributed to via their host states equivalent to NI contributions.

Sorry to shout, but I've repeated this many times yet people still choose to ignore it.

[7by7]

Everyone from Europe, America, Canada, Australia & New Zealand is let in to the UK with little or no constraints.

So why not let everyone else in as well?

All EEA nationals enjoy treaty rights covering freedom of movement within the EEA; this includes living and working; but as already explained it is not without restriction. Abolishing these treaty rights would be disastrous for the tens of thousands of British pensioners and other British nationals living in Spain, France, etc.

Why would it affect pensions or pensioners?

Pensions are dependent on NI contributions, not nationality.

Abolishing the freedom of movement rights within the EEA would mean that these pensioners would not be able to live in another EEA state without complying with whatever immigration requirements and restrictions said state wished to impose upon them.

I thought that my post made that clear to anyone with half a brain; apparently not.

[thaibeachlovers]

^^^

Pure convenient self justification in a dismal attempt to defend your decision to become an immigrant.

I wonder though if you've ever given the people who you are railing against the same opportunity to defend and explain themselves?

Probably not. But not unexpected either.

Definitions of "immigrant" -

a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.

A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.

One who immigrates; one who comes to a country for the purpose of permanent residence

................................

I'm not an immigrant. It will be easier for my wife to become an immigrant in my home country than it would be for me to be one here. And she'll be able to work, pay taxes etc there, which I can't do here.

Edited November 22, 2011 by thaibeachlovers

[elliss]

what we have/used to have in the uk was NOT GOD GIVEN ..

our forefathers , many who fought and many died for democracy .

the NHS ,FREE EDUCATION, aneurin bevan , lloydd george etc .

it seems to me most eastern countries ,lack this determination.

but are more than willing , to have a share of our handouts.

a welfare state, will soon be a fond memory .

profit and compassion, do not mix well.

:jap:

[samran]

^^^

Pure convenient self justification in a dismal attempt to defend your decision to become an immigrant.

I wonder though if you've ever given the people who you are railing against the same opportunity to defend and explain themselves?

Probably not. But not unexpected either.

Definitions of "immigrant" -

a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.

A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.

One who immigrates; one who comes to a country for the purpose of permanent residence

................................

I'm not an immigrant. It will be easier for my wife to become an immigrant in my home country than it would be for me to be one here. And she'll be able to work, pay taxes etc there, which I can't do here.

I didn't know being called an immigrant was offensive to some people. Then what are you, if not an immigrant?

[ludditeman]

Everyone from Europe, America, Canada, Australia & New Zealand is let in to the UK with little or no constraints.

So why not let everyone else in as well?

All EEA nationals enjoy treaty rights covering freedom of movement within the EEA; this includes living and working; but as already explained it is not without restriction. Abolishing these treaty rights would be disastrous for the tens of thousands of British pensioners and other British nationals living in Spain, France, etc.

Why would it affect pensions or pensioners?

Pensions are dependent on NI contributions, not nationality.

Abolishing the freedom of movement rights within the EEA would mean that these pensioners would not be able to live in another EEA state without complying with whatever immigration requirements and restrictions said state wished to impose upon them.

I thought that my post made that clear to anyone with half a brain; apparently not.

And my post was suggesting that freedom of movement was extended to Everyone from Everywhere and not about abolishing any.

I thought my post was perfectly clear, but apparently it wasn't.

[ludditeman]

^^^

Pure convenient self justification in a dismal attempt to defend your decision to become an immigrant.

I wonder though if you've ever given the people who you are railing against the same opportunity to defend and explain themselves?

Probably not. But not unexpected either.

Definitions of "immigrant" -

a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.

A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.

One who immigrates; one who comes to a country for the purpose of permanent residence

................................

I'm not an immigrant. It will be easier for my wife to become an immigrant in my home country than it would be for me to be one here. And she'll be able to work, pay taxes etc there, which I can't do here.

I didn't know being called an immigrant was offensive to some people. Then what are you, if not an immigrant?

According to my passport I am a NON-immigrant, I'm assuming the other poster has a similar stamp.

[StreetCowboy]

^^^

Pure convenient self justification in a dismal attempt to defend your decision to become an immigrant.

I wonder though if you've ever given the people who you are railing against the same opportunity to defend and explain themselves?

Probably not. But not unexpected either.

Definitions of "immigrant" -

a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.

A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.

One who immigrates; one who comes to a country for the purpose of permanent residence

................................

I'm not an immigrant. It will be easier for my wife to become an immigrant in my home country than it would be for me to be one here. And she'll be able to work, pay taxes etc there, which I can't do here.

I didn't know being called an immigrant was offensive to some people. Then what are you, if not an immigrant?

I think he's a visitor. The point about being an immigrant is not that one chooses to live in a foreign country, but that one intends to die there.

I prefer to think of myself as a migrant worker, rather than an immigrant. It stirs up romantic notions of caravans, and cars left on bricks...

He raises an interesting point - that we are only allowed to take a job if there is not a Thai that can do it - suggesting that the amount of work (and hence the size of the economy) is limited; whereas another view might be that by taking a job, it frees up a Thai to do something more useful and productive, and helps keep down the rate for services that can be provided by semi-literate migrants. I suppose, at the end of the day, it depends on whether the government feels that Thais are sufficiently competent and educated to find productive jobs, or whether they need protected from competition from foreigners due to their lack of the skills and education necessary in the modern world.

SC

[samran]

^^^

Pure convenient self justification in a dismal attempt to defend your decision to become an immigrant.

I wonder though if you've ever given the people who you are railing against the same opportunity to defend and explain themselves?

Probably not. But not unexpected either.

Definitions of "immigrant" -

a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.

A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.

One who immigrates; one who comes to a country for the purpose of permanent residence

................................

I'm not an immigrant. It will be easier for my wife to become an immigrant in my home country than it would be for me to be one here. And she'll be able to work, pay taxes etc there, which I can't do here.

I didn't know being called an immigrant was offensive to some people. Then what are you, if not an immigrant?

I think he's a visitor. The point about being an immigrant is not that one chooses to live in a foreign country, but that one intends to die there.

I prefer to think of myself as a migrant worker, rather than an immigrant. It stirs up romantic notions of caravans, and cars left on bricks...

He raises an interesting point - that we are only allowed to take a job if there is not a Thai that can do it - suggesting that the amount of work (and hence the size of the economy) is limited; whereas another view might be that by taking a job, it frees up a Thai to do something more useful and productive, and helps keep down the rate for services that can be provided by semi-literate migrants. I suppose, at the end of the day, it depends on whether the government feels that Thais are sufficiently competent and educated to find productive jobs, or whether they need protected from competition from foreigners due to their lack of the skills and education necessary in the modern world.

SC

To be honest, I don't think in Thai work permit regs there is the requirement that you have to show that you are not taking a job I Thai can not do. While there is the restricted occupations list (in most cases, easily gotten around) and the necessity for paid up capital and the 4:1 ratio for non-BOI companies, there isn't requirement in Thailand (unlike say the UK) to advertise a job consecutively for x amount of weeks or proving (in the UK) to the Home Office there isn't a local who can do the job.

I stand to be corrected though.

The difficulty about getting a job in Thailand has more to do with the skills set needed and what the market is prepared to pay for those skills. People make this as somehow it is the Thai governments fault, when in fact, it is pure (cold hearted) economics at work.

I think I must also clear up something here.

I think you (SC) and a few others have realised I've been playing devils advocate on this thread. As someone has already said, it is hypocritical that immigrants complaining about immigrants, especially, when you look at it objectively, they are pretty much the same (despite their protestations that their visa doesn't call them that or how they've invested their blood sweat and tears).

I'm actually quite a big supporter of immigration, open border for skilled workers and family and settlement rights (this last one I note that people have problems with in the UK, but complain when Thailand doesn't offer it).

As to the issue of 'social services' and other public infrastructure - again, just playing devils advocate. Of course you can't parse one's contribution down to the nth cent/baht/pence and say that someone has contributed sufficiently, and others haven't. Some have paid their fair share of taxes, other's haven't, others never will.

[trevorg]

Trevorg, you need to read an earlier post of mine. Your perception of both UK immigration law and EEA freedom of movement regulations are both very wrong.

As repeated many, many times; EEA nationals exercising a treaty right to live and work in another EEA state are

NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM PUBLIC FUNDS IN THEIR HOST STATE!!!

Except for those they have contributed to via their host states equivalent to NI contributions.

Sorry to shout, but I've repeated this many times yet people still choose to ignore it.

Except for those they have contributed to via their host states equivalent to NI contributions.

Which for most of the 'recent' joiners to the EEA means nothing (not a penny), they have lived in communist dictatorships for 50 years, they had no idea of self or Tax or National Insurance contributions! Not their fault - and good luck to every one of them - I'm sure I'd do the same!

[trevorg]

Samran - you are a snob! 'open border for skilled workers' leave the peasants ! I liked you and your opinions and thoughts, but you now disappoint me! Good luck!

[samran]

Samran - you are a snob! 'open border for skilled workers' leave the peasants ! I liked you and your opinions and thoughts, but you now disappoint me! Good luck!

Snob is my middle name.....

What do you define as a skilled worker though? For me that include skilled trades people etc.

[trevorg]

Samran - you are a snob! 'open border for skilled workers' leave the peasants ! I liked you and your opinions and thoughts, but you now disappoint me! Good luck!

Snob is my middle name.....

What do you define as a skilled worker though? For me that include skilled trades people etc.

This could go on for a while - so for just one trade! has a multimeter and knows how to use it.

[Totster]

I'm actually quite a big supporter of immigration, open border for skilled workers and family and settlement rights (this last one I note that people have problems with in the UK, but complain when Thailand doesn't offer it).

Quite important comment I think. I think the people of the UK would be able to swallow the whole immigration issue (as is being debated in the UK at the mo) if the rest of the world "played fair" (please excuse me for the phrase, but it seems the best fit).

Totster

[samran]

Samran - you are a snob! 'open border for skilled workers' leave the peasants ! I liked you and your opinions and thoughts, but you now disappoint me! Good luck!

Snob is my middle name.....

What do you define as a skilled worker though? For me that include skilled trades people etc.

This could go on for a while - so for just one trade! has a multimeter and knows how to use it.

It is a bit bureaucratic, but Australia, NZ and Canada seem to run fairly good skilled migration progammes - lists of skills which are in demand and if you have those skills, you can apply to migrate. Plumbers, hairdressers, lawyers, engineers. Just really depends on the skills in demand in the economy at the time.

Add in family migration, and I really like the US 50,000 people via their immigrant lottery and you get a rich tapestry of migrants who can add immense depth to a country and it society.

I've never been a believer in the myth that migrants are spongers. Quite the opposite. They are hungry, and countries should welcome them.

The legal ones - they've been prepared to uproot their lives, and usually their families, to strive for something they couldn't at home.

The illegal ones - if someone is prepared to risk their lives on a leaky boat then they've got to be hungry. They are the ones who you want to build your country. It certainly can't be for the 88 quid per week dole in a country where you can't walk out the front door without 20 quid vanishing from your wallet.

Edited November 22, 2011 by samran