Uk Family Migration Cuts Proposed

[theoldgit]

The Migration Advisory Committee have recommended that UK residents sponsoring a partner's arrival should earn between £18,600 and £25,700 before tax, this report has been a long time coming, we all knew it was on it's way so we will have to see what figure they go for now.

I did find the figures of from what countries/regions had the most applicants quite interesting, the Indian Subcontinent is by far in the lead with 35% of all applications, the US has far more applications than Thailand.

Watch this space

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15758588

Edited November 17, 2011 by theoldgit

[chewy22]

Worth a listen http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9641000/9641440.stm

[kennkate]

Good Job I got in before this. If it becomes law it would have stuffed me on my Pension. I do have other income but together it's not £18.600.

Surely they must take outgoings onto account and look at disposable income. Most older folks have paid for their houses so would have more to play with.

If they do bring this in without looking at the disposable income then it would be a real blow for the older people.

If you are in this older Cat then it would be best to get on with it..

But maybe it's all pie in the sky. Then again maybe not

[VisasPlus]

As you know, I tried to highlight these proposed changes a while back, when people had the chance to make their feelings known to the government during the consultation process. The governmrnt says that the responses to the consultation paper shows that the majority of people are in favour of the changes. Having seen the proposed income levels for sponsors of settlement applications, I am shocked. It will mean that, at the lower level, almost half of current sponsors would not qualify to sponsor their partner, and at the higher level almost two-thirds would not qualify as sponsors. It begs the questions as to who can actually sponsor a spouse or partner, and the answer would seem to be that only the wealthier sponsors can bring a partner to the UK. This must be morally wrong, and it will no doubt be tested in the European courts. The government has already lost the battle on age for spouses in the courts, and the word is that they will shortly be forced to withdraw the English language requirement. I think, if the current income level proposal comes into law, then the government will again lose in the ECJ, as the proposal discriminates against lower income groups. The right to family life should not depend on how much you earn, or, to be more exact, how much income you have.

One thing has hasn't been mentioned in this announcement is third - party support. It was mentioned in the initial proposals, and I guess third - party support will be going too. There would be no point in raising the income level requirement if the shortfall in income could be overcome by third - party support. My bet is that it will be gone soon too.

[7by7]

There has never been a minimum income required in the past simply because it would be unfair on lower income sponsors. Especially as the cost of living varies so much in different regions of the country.

This is just a proposal at the moment; hopefully the government will learn from the age limit fiasco and drop it.

NB.

Reasoned responses and discussion on the legal and other ramifications only in this topic, please.

There is another topic running for those who wish to display their ignorance and/or prejudices.

[tricolor]

What is the official name for a family visa ? Is a spouse/partner settlement visa what they are referring to ? or are there other types of visa included in the family visa grouping ?

Also, does the definition of dependant extend as far as brothers/sisters, parents , grandparents, all in-laws, nephews/nieces, cousins etc. ?

[7by7]

They all come under the general heading of settlement visa. The requirements are all basically the same, with slight variations depending on the category.

The most common family categories are:

• Spouse
• Civil Partner
• Fiancé(e)
• Proposed civil partner
• Unmarried or same-sex partner
• Child

[/url]Parents, grandparents and other dependants can apply for settlement, but in addition to the usual requirements would have to prove that they are wholly and totally dependent upon their UK resident family member. They must be unable to support themselves and have no one in their home country able to support them.

Family members under 18 who are not the children of the UK resident sponsor can also apply, but again would have to prove that there is no other family member in their home country who could care for them. That the child may have a better standard of living, education etc. in the UK than in their home country is not a factor considered in such applications.

The current requirements can be found at Immigration Rules; Part 8, Family Members

[tricolor]

They all come under the general heading of settlement visa. The requirements are all basically the same, with slight variations depending on the category.

The most common family categories are:

• Spouse
• Civil Partner
• Fiancé(e)
• Proposed civil partner
• Unmarried or same-sex partner
• Child

[/url]Parents, grandparents and other dependants can apply for settlement, but in addition to the usual requirements would have to prove that they are wholly and totally dependent upon their UK resident family member. They must be unable to support themselves and have no one in their home country able to support them.

Family members under 18 who are not the children of the UK resident sponsor can also apply, but again would have to prove that there is no other family member in their home country who could care for them. That the child may have a better standard of living, education etc. in the UK than in their home country is not a factor considered in such applications.

The current requirements can be found at Immigration Rules; Part 8, Family Members

Thanks for the explanation.

[scotsman]

I find this proposal to be just another easy way to reduce the immigration numbers that the Conservative Government likes to use, just like the very big net in there new incapacity test. They pick on the easy targets. Why do they not have a proposal to say that Spouses will not be able to claim any benefits for the first 2 or 3 years this would give them time to find work and your spouse can still live with you as is your right to family life. Ah!! but This would not cut immigration so they don't want to know typical.

regards

Scotsman

[7by7]

Why do they not have a proposal to say that Spouses will not be able to claim any benefits for the first 2 or 3 years this would give them time to find work and your spouse can still live with you as is your right to family life.

Spouses etc. are prohibited from claiming most public funds until they have ILR. In addition, whilst their British spouse etc. may claim public funds, they may not claim any extra due to their foreign spouse living with them.

This has been the rule for many years.

[scotsman]

Why do they not have a proposal to say that Spouses will not be able to claim any benefits for the first 2 or 3 years this would give them time to find work and your spouse can still live with you as is your right to family life.

Spouses etc. are prohibited from claiming most public funds until they have ILR. In addition, whilst their British spouse etc. may claim public funds, they may not claim any extra due to their foreign spouse living with them.

This has been the rule for many years.

I had good idea this was still the rule then why is the government listing to this proposal of increasing the amount of income the sponsor has to have for his spouse to live with him in the uk? As usual its a easy target to reduce the immigration numbers by picking on the weakest link. If they wanted to reduce immigration there is a very good way to do it but this would upset our European partners, Just follow the European Union rules for immigration from outside the EU. All immigrants are the responsibly of the first country's port of arrival not jumping from Germany or France to the uk They should be deported the same day back to the country where they first arrived. But this is not done because they would upset to many people in the EU.

regards

Scotsman

[7by7]

Not sure what you mean; but non EEA nationals residing in one EEA state do not have any right to move to another EEA state without first obtaining the appropriate visa from the second state.

It is only non EEA national family members of an EEA national that enjoy the same freedom of movement treaty rights as EEA nationals; providing they are traveling with or to join their EEA national family member.

As the UK is a member of the EEA and a signatory to these freedom of movement treaties, British citizens and their non EEA national family members enjoy the same rights within the rest of the EEA.

If you mean asylum seekers, then international treaties mean that the country where they claim asylum is the one which has to deal with them. If they make it to the UK and then claim asylum it is the responsibility of the UK to process that claim.

You must surely be aware of the UKBA staff stationed in, for example, Calais and searching lorries etc. for people attempting to enter the UK illegally' If found then these people are stopped and returned to France.

[Eff1n2ret]

.

If you mean asylum seekers, then international treaties mean that the country where they claim asylum is the one which has to deal with them. If they make it to the UK and then claim asylum it is the responsibility of the UK to process that claim.

You must surely be aware of the UKBA staff stationed in, for example, Calais and searching lorries etc. for people attempting to enter the UK illegally' If found then these people are stopped and returned to France.

I think you are correct to interpret Scotsman's statement as referring to asylum seekers. Straightforward illegal entrants can be removed whence they embarked if they are intercepted on arrival and sent straight back. Once they are inside the UK, usually the only place to which they can be sent is their own country, and the difficulty of establishing their identity and nationality is the reason why such removals can be a protracted business, if they happen at all.

“Deporting back to the first country where they arrived” was indeed the provision of the Geneva Convention on Refugees (the first safe country, it said), but that went out of the window in early 1996 with the implementation of something called the 'Dublin Agreement', a truly pernicious piece of EU trickery to which the UK should never have signed up. In place of the straightforward Geneva principles were introduced a cat's cradle of rules and procedures which had to be followed before returning an asylum applicant to anywhere else in the EU. In essence countries had to submit the applicant's details and fingerprints to EU countries where it was thought they might have first arrived or previously claimed asylum, wait up to 3 months for a positive or negative response, then if positive ask permission (!) to send them back. Of course, in the meantime chummy had long since absconded, so the whole thing was pretty meaningless. Once can understand why countries on the front line such as Greece, Italy and Spain should appear less than diligent in recording the deluge of arrivals on their shores or submitting their fingerprints to the relevant database, but the result has been a one-way valve towards the UK, with Sangatte and subsequently the Maginot Line of UK Immigration Officers on the French coast. This has been partly effective in stemming the flow, but it means that UK immigration policy is now in hock to the French, and the sad fact is that those illegals who are intercepted there are not subsequently processed by the French, they're just kicked out on the street and get to try again. Times many I checked the fingerprints of a recent arrival in police custody and found a match with a set taken in Coquelles a month or two before. Could I send the guy back to France?- don't be silly.

In the context of all that, the tendency of policy-makers in recent years to raise the bar ever higher for would-be legal immigrants seems unfair and inappropriate, as it is constantly targeting a far less serious problem than the colossal number of illegals and failed asylum seekers milling around the UK that the powers-that-be haven't a clue what to do with. As always, I suspect that the real target for more draconian restrictions on entry via marriage or other family routes is the Indian sub-continent, and it's just tough luck on anyone else affected.