Proposed Uk Settlement Visa Changes

[VisasPlus]

This is the latest on the government's proposed changes to the requirements for sponsors in spouse/partner applications. The changes are due to be introduced next month, according to the Home Secretary, but no date has been given yet.

http://www.guardian....es-stark-choice

Edited June 9, 2012 by VisasPlus

[Hawkinschris]

To be fair I kind of agree!

I am all for foreign spouse/partners coming to the UK (mine has) but as along as they pay the relevant taxes, and integrate into society.

As the article says "If a British citizen or a person settled here cannot support their foreign spouse or partner they cannot expect the taxpayer to do it for them"

Edited June 9, 2012 by Hawkinschris

[VisasPlus]

To be fair I kind of agree!

I am all for foreign spouse/partners coming to the UK (mine has) but as along as they pay the relevant taxes, and integrate into society.

As the article says "If a British citizen or a person settled here cannot support their foreign spouse or partner they cannot expect the taxpayer to do it for them"

I don't think that is in dispute. What is in dispute is that the requirement is divisive and discriminatory. People with high incomes will be able to bring a spouse/partner into the UK, but a low income earner, or a pensioner will not. What about the British citizen who has worked overseas for many years, has a non-EU spouse and a couple of kids ? He wants to retire to the UK, his home, but cannot as his pension is below the level that someone in government has dictated is sufficient. What about the British citizen who earns 100,000 GBP a year, but spends 99,000 GBP a year because he has a high mortgage, etc ? He might be able to bring a spouse/partner, but the man who earns 24,000 GBP, has no mortgage, but has a greater disposable income cannot ? Is that right ? Income should not be the deciding factor. Maybe a form of means testing is appropriate.

We have to wait and see what the changes will be, but if the government just brings in a stated minimum income level then I'm sure it will be tested in the European courts, and the government will lose. In the meantime they will be able to say that they have reduced net immigration by x thousand a year, as they promised to do. Unfortunately, they are going after the wrong targets.

[bkk_mike]

It will be like all the other immigration laws that the UK has introduced recently... (like having to get permission to marry in the UK - unless you're getting married in a CofE church, or needing to be 21, etc.)

It will be thrown out by either the courts in the UK or the court of human rights in the EU.

Why they keep introducing crap like this that anyone with half a brain cell knows will fall foul of human rights laws - I don't know...

[theoldgit]

Unfortunately, they are going after the wrong targets.

As you know Tony it's all target driven, so they will just go after the easy ones.

[demus20]

next month???

im a few thousand short of this 25k salary rule, and was hoping to have a settlement visa for my wife later this year (we have a child also)

i know i can afford to take care of her and our child no problem, without using any benefits.

i cant believe this is going to come into effect!!! so basically if this goes through ill have no choice but to turn my back on my own country...

[chiang mai]

"the move will exclude two-thirds of British people – those who have a minimum gross income of under £25,700 a year – from living in the UK as a couple if they marry a non-EU national. They estimate that between 45% and 60% of the 53,000 family visas currently issued each year could fall foul of the new rules".

"Family visas account for 17% of non-EU immigration", so if the attempt is to reduce the number of immigrants entering the UK, why start with such a very small group, a group that is probably the most legit of any.

It's difficult for me to imagine this bill will see light of day in it's present form.

Edited June 9, 2012 by chiang mai

[chiang mai]

The more I've thought about this the more incensed I've become, the total number of immigrants into the UK each year is currently around 593,000, family visa's account for less than 10% of that total at 53K. If the consultation paper proposes to penalise and restrict the number of family visas, probably the smallest yet most legit group of all, how does this tackle, to any meaningful degree, the problem of high immigration numbers!

[theoldgit]

An interesting slant to the frozen pension debate comes into play here.

The scenario could be that a British person of a certain age decide to live in their home country with their non Brit spouse, the Brit may be of pensionable age. The Brit may have a home in the UK, maybe savings but only income is the retirement pension, so would seem to fall foul of the new rules.

The Brit would seem to have a stark choice, do they remain overseas with their spouse, have their pension frozen and maybe have to sell their home, or do they abandon their spouse and return to the UK.

As previous posters have indicated I'm all for families not being a drain on the State, but this as ill thought out proposal and will open a can of worms when is applied.

Edited June 10, 2012 by theoldgit

[chiang mai]

An interesting slant to the frozen pension debate comes into play here.

The scenario could be that a British person of a certain age decide to live in their home country with their non Brit spouse, the Brit may be of pensionable age. The Brit may have a home in the UK, maybe savings but only income is the retirement pension, so would seem to fall foul of the new rules.

The Brit would seem to have a stark choice, do they remain overseas with their spouse, have their pension frozen and maybe have to sell their home, or do they abandon their spouse and return to the UK.

As previous posters have indicated I'm all for families not being a drain on the State, but this as ill thought out proposal and will open a can of worms when is applied.

In all fairness, a word I'm loathe to use in the context of this paper, cash assets typically have an income value associated with them, regardless of whether or not that income actually exists. So if a pensioner had say 100k he/she would be deemed to have an income of 5 or 6% of that amount, it's not unlike the UK benefits system whereby assets count as income.

[VisasPlus]

My own thoughts are that, if this is introduced, then the government also has to do away with third party support ( financial assistance given by someone else to help out ). If they don't do away with third party support, then it will be fairly easy for some, those with family or friends to help out ( in reality or on paper). If they actually get rid of third party support, then it will be a real problem. Third party support was abolished some time ago, and then re-introduced after the courts said that the government was wrong to remove it. It will be interesting to see what the government will do this time. My gut feeling is that they will try to introduce the minimum income requirement and remove the possibility of third party support.

John, yes they are going after the easy targets. But at least they will be able to say that have reduced net immigration by 7 - 10% at a stroke !

[VisasPlus]

The MailOnline puts the expected minimum income level at 20,000 GBP a year :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156993/New-law-demands-20-000-salary-marry-foreigner.html

The article also talks about spouses/partners applying for settlement visas having to show "a genuine attachment to the UK". I have no idea what this will mean, but I do recall that way back the government was suggesting that a settlement applicant couldn't apply for a visa unless they had visited the UK previously. May be they are thinking of introducing something along those lines.

The earlier proposals also talked about more stringent language tests for settlement visa applicants. I understand that the current level - A1 CEFR - could be raised to B1 level CEFR. We see lots of applicants who get a pass at A1 or A2, but very few at B1. Let's hope that it is only raised to A2 level, if it is raised.

[theoldgit]

. John, yes they are going after the easy targets. But at least they will be able to say that have reduced net immigration by 7 - 10% at a stroke !

Sole purpose of exercise I suspect, as you say at a stroke the figures will show a substantial reduction in net immigration which will please The Daily Mail readership.

The average voter will not understand, or care about, the truth behind the headline, or the heartache the legislation will inevitably cause.

[chiang mai]

next month???

im a few thousand short of this 25k salary rule, and was hoping to have a settlement visa for my wife later this year (we have a child also)

i know i can afford to take care of her and our child no problem, without using any benefits.

i cant believe this is going to come into effect!!! so basically if this goes through ill have no choice but to turn my back on my own country...

The document you've seen is a consultation document, it doesn't mean that what contained in it will become law, the end product could look quite different.

[VisasPlus]

next month???

im a few thousand short of this 25k salary rule, and was hoping to have a settlement visa for my wife later this year (we have a child also)

i know i can afford to take care of her and our child no problem, without using any benefits.

i cant believe this is going to come into effect!!! so basically if this goes through ill have no choice but to turn my back on my own country...

The document you've seen is a consultation document, it doesn't mean that what contained in it will become law, the end product could look quite different.

You may be right. Let's hope you are. The Daily Telegraph says this:

Mrs May is also set to introduce a new “financial independence” rule next month that will oblige anyone wanting to bring a spouse from overseas to the UK to have a minimum salary of £18,600. This threshold rises if the couple have offspring, with someone applying to bring three children into the UK obliged to have an annual income of £27,200.

The tough new stance follows a lengthy campaign by this newspaper and aims to combat a rise in so-called “sham marriages”, which have been used by tens of thousands of migrants to come to the UK and may become a burden on the taxpayer.

The Home Secretary will also extend the probationary period of a non-EU spouse from two years to five and announces rules to keep out elderly relatives of migrants who might require extensive NHS treatment.

There will also be new language and “British values” tests for immigrants. It will also no longer be possible to extend visas simply for being in a relationship.

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph in late March, Mrs May said: “By the summer, I will have changed the immigration rules so that we can end the abuse of the right to a family life.”

Although tomorrow’s announcement will be popular with her party and a large proportion of the general public, it is like to unsettle Liberal Democrats and face opposition from lawyers and judges.

It does say 'tomorrow's announcement", so we may know quite soon.

EDIT : I think "tomorrow" referred to today's party conference speech ( which I have just read) which mentioned only Article 8 rights.

Edited June 10, 2012 by VisasPlus

[Stevedirtycash]

With this tho it will be agaist my human rights to have my partner with me , because of my income if i can support another person on my money that should be the fact not the set amount of income , i sent an letter last month and i got some rubbish back but . When they put forward people will appeal it. mostly indias are like 8% coming over and 4% thai

Edited June 10, 2012 by 7by7
See below

[transam]

With this tho it will be agaist my human rights to have my partner with me , because of my income if i can support another person on my money that should be the fact not the set amount of income , i sent an letter last month and i got some rubbish back but . When they put forward people will appeal it. mostly indias are like 8% coming over and 4% thai ,

How right you are. What does the average UK pensioner have to live on ?, NOTHING like 25 UK pounds.

BUT, It's a bit like a farang must have many times a Thai persons income to live with his Thai wife in LOS.

Edited June 10, 2012 by 7by7

[Basil B]

As someone who has contributed heavily NI and Income tax for many years before being made redundant, and being at an age where I could not find another job invested all I had and more in a business so I would have employment, and after 12 months I know it will be many years before I could hope to bring my GF back to the UK as my wife.

These figures are unjustifiable as cost of living is depends mainly on the geographical areas, and 18K+ certainly far higher then what the government deems what you need to live on, I got £56 a week for 23 weeks which I would not get after 26 weeks as I had been investing for my old age, so I assume the government decides that I can live on £3K a year, have a wife that would be £6K so why set the minimum requirement at 6 times this?

Today the Home Secretory is going to for judges who accept Article 8 of the Human Rights Act as reason not to deport criminals. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18384543

What is clear I live in an unfair Britain where persons from other EU member countries can bring there spouses to live in the UK on a free EEA Permit and my intended would have to pay an unjust punitive fee, not just once but 2 or more times.

I hope with as as happened with so many of the latest ideas of this government that they will have to do a u turn.

[chiang mai]

The whole piece is just so wrong in so many ways, like most others I endorse that a foriegn wife must be supported by the husband and excluded from access to public funds. But this political motivated piece of legislation misses all the points and as might be expected, targets an easy win whilst leaving the core problem untouched, it's utter nonesence.

[theblether]

Here we go again, another rabid attack on the government for addressing immigration issues that they CAN tackle.

They cannot address inter-EU migration as those treaties have been well established and welcomed!! There are millions of UK nationals living in Europe under the protection of these treaties.

So stop being hypocritical.

The government can!! Address non-EU immigration, the figure mooted is far less than the average wage in the country, to me the real issues will be the stringent language proficiency and established relationship criteria.

It's going to put a stop to feckless idiots trying to get visas for bar girls they've rattled for 3 nights.

The new probation period of 5 years is good too.

So calm down, the majority of people will not be affected by the £20k requirement, I reckon you'll see far more carnage caused by the language requirement becoming even stricter.

[7by7]

Some off topic posts and some containing racist comments and unfounded allegations have been removed and others edited. As have posts responding to them.

Please restrict discussion to this proposed legislation and it's effects if it is introduced.

[VisasPlus]

Here we go again, another rabid attack on the government for addressing immigration issues that they CAN tackle.

They cannot address inter-EU migration as those treaties have been well established and welcomed!! There are millions of UK nationals living in Europe under the protection of these treaties.

So stop being hypocritical.

The government can!! Address non-EU immigration, the figure mooted is far less than the average wage in the country, to me the real issues will be the stringent language proficiency and established relationship criteria.

It's going to put a stop to feckless idiots trying to get visas for bar girls they've rattled for 3 nights.

The new probation period of 5 years is good too.

So calm down, the majority of people will not be affected by the £20k requirement, I reckon you'll see far more carnage caused by the language requirement becoming even stricter.

You make some valid points, but maybe you miss the main point. No government should be able to say who can bring a spouse/partner into the UK on the basis of how much they earn. As I said earlier, the fact that someone has an income higher than the next person does not mean that they are more able to support the spouse/partner. Setting income levels to be able to sponsor a wife or husband is wrong.

[chiang mai]

Here we go again, another rabid attack on the government for addressing immigration issues that they CAN tackle.

They cannot address inter-EU migration as those treaties have been well established and welcomed!! There are millions of UK nationals living in Europe under the protection of these treaties.

So stop being hypocritical.

The government can!! Address non-EU immigration, the figure mooted is far less than the average wage in the country, to me the real issues will be the stringent language proficiency and established relationship criteria.

It's going to put a stop to feckless idiots trying to get visas for bar girls they've rattled for 3 nights.

The new probation period of 5 years is good too.

So calm down, the majority of people will not be affected by the £20k requirement, I reckon you'll see far more carnage caused by the language requirement becoming even stricter.

Er, um, "another rabid attack on the government for addressing immigration issues that they CAN tackle", so it's to be admired that the UK goovernment is targeting a reduction in the 10% group rather than the 90% group, even though the 10% group represents family, I don't think so! In reality the proposed legislation will negatively impact around 10% of that 10% group (sham marriages et al), statistically that's negligible and clearly the entire consultation exersise will cost far more than it will save.

[7by7]

Chiang Mai, can you direct me to the figures which show that family migrants only constitute 10% of all immigrants into the UK as I can't find them.

Thank you.

[VisasPlus]

Apparently, Mrs May has said today ( on the Andrew Marr show) that the income level will be 18,000 GBP for a spouse, and 22,000 GBP for a spouse and one child. No other details available yet.

EDIT: I can't find any confirmation of that yet

Edited June 10, 2012 by VisasPlus

[chiang mai]

Chiang Mai, can you direct me to the figures which show that family migrants only constitute 10% of all immigrants into the UK as I can't find them.

Thank you.

My post 8 above cites total immigration of circa 535K, per Wiki for 2011, family figures of circa 50k come from the consultation paper. Apologies for not posting links previously or on this occaision but am rushed as well as incensed at the paper.

[chiang mai]

Some stats here that talk of 596K in total thus family total is less than 10%:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jun/26/non-eu-immigration-uk-statistics

[7by7]

I'll see if I can find a better breakdown. I suspect that the Guardian's figures include workers, students etc., most of whom can't really be classed as immigrants as they don't stay.

I should point out that whilst I am not against a minimum income in theory, in practice the amounts being talked about are way to high.

No one has mentioned the proposal to increase the qualifying period for ILR from two years to five.

I do not have a problem with this. It wont effect genuine couples that much, apart from increasing the time before the non British spouse can apply for citizenship, but will, I feel, help dissuade sham marriages. Having to live with someone for five years is a lot different to doing so for just two and the chances of getting caught must increase.

[chiang mai]

I'll see if I can find a better breakdown. I suspect that the Guardian's figures include workers, students etc., most of whom can't really be classed as immigrants as they don't stay.

I should point out that whilst I am not against a minimum income in theory, in practice the amounts being talked about are way to high.

No one has mentioned the proposal to increase the qualifying period for ILR from two years to five.

I do not have a problem with this. It wont effect genuine couples that much, apart from increasing the time before the non British spouse can apply for citizenship, but will, I feel, help dissuade sham marriages. Having to live with someone for five years is a lot different to doing so for just two and the chances of getting caught must increase.

7B7, the numbers are from the ONS, reprinted by the Guardian, good luck finding better numbers.

As far as the two to five year change is concerned: personally I would not care if the UK adopted the Thai approach and said that ILR was not possible, period, that would certainly solve the humanitarian aspect of this worthless amendment.

[7by7]

7B7, the numbers are from the ONS, reprinted by the Guardian, good luck finding better numbers.

Not looking for 'better' numbers, whatever that means, but a full breakdown.

The UKBA used to provide this; a full, annual breakdown not just by country but by type of visa. Then the ONS took over and made finding simple things like that much more complicated and difficult!