This is from the BBC website:

The home secretary has also outlined plans to introduce minimum income requirements for people seeking to bring foreign spouses or children into the country.

To arrive with a spouse from outside the European Union, an immigrant would have to earn at least £18,600 a year. It would be more if they had children

There is nothing about any of the other proposals on the website

Edited June 10, 201214 yr by 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

The BBC website is quoting May as indicatin "To arrive with a spouse from outside the EU, an immigrant would have to earn at least 18,600 a year. It would be more if they had children". I will download the programme later.

In response to theblether, I for one am certainly critisising the Government for only seemingly addressing the soft targets, there are far bigger issues to address but they will remain in the difficult pile.

if my wife were to be granted a visa to the UK, she wouldnt be able to claim any benefits, right? she'd have a big stamp in her passport saying "no recourse to public funds" or whatever, no?

what about all the unskilled and their families pouring into the UK from eastern europe etc?? They're fine but hard working, working class, like myself, have no chance because i dont earn enough for the Tories to consider me a human being.

the more i think about this legislation the more i'm certain this cant be accepted. Surely they'll throw this out? It's disgraceful.

if my wife were to be granted a visa to the UK, she wouldnt be able to claim any benefits, right? she'd have a big stamp in her passport saying "no recourse to public funds" or whatever, no?

what about all the unskilled and their families pouring into the UK from eastern europe etc?? They're fine but hard working, working class, like myself, have no chance because i dont earn enough for the Tories to consider me a human being.

the more i think about this legislation the more i'm certain this cant be accepted. Surely they'll throw this out? It's disgraceful.

How right you are, but those who come up with this crap have never had to worry about cash, we could live on their sandwich allowance.

if my wife were to be granted a visa to the UK, she wouldnt be able to claim any benefits, right? she'd have a big stamp in her passport saying "no recourse to public funds" or whatever, no?

what about all the unskilled and their families pouring into the UK from eastern europe etc?? They're fine but hard working, working class, like myself, have no chance because i dont earn enough for the Tories to consider me a human being.

the more i think about this legislation the more i'm certain this cant be accepted. Surely they'll throw this out? It's disgraceful.

The legislation will almost certainly be accepted, it's a part of a trend of recent times, sorry, whether or not the legislation will be passed in its present form, remains to be seen.

You are broadly correct about what you have said regarding your wife and benefits, she would not be elligible for public funds.

looks like i'll have to try my hand at teaching english....

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!

Apologies, I was not trying to antagonise, merely picking up on your use of the word "better", if you can find a better breakdown I'll be keen to see it although I don't believe it will change the percentages that underscore the basic principle involved here.

It seems my last warning was too subtle for some.

This topic has nothing to do with the EEA freedom of movement treaties which mean that Brits can study, work or retire in other EEA countries and nationals of other EEA countries can do the same in the UK.

If anyone wishes to discuss the rights and wrongs of these treaties and rights, as they see it, or even just repeat the ill informed and sometimes plain wrong propaganda broadcast by some papers; do it elsewhere, not in this thread.

The same goes for comments on asylum seekers.

Any more posts containing comments on those lines will be removed and the poster given a holiday.

no matter the figure i think its wrong. However, if it was £18,600 or £25,000 min does this take into account both adults working once there settled (taking into account job prospects) or is this the minimum that the settled spouse must be earning in order to facilitate the visa for the other half?

5 years of a civil engineering degree will be a waste if i have to go into English teaching. we are not prepared to wait anymore.

Do they really have any idea how much life costs in UK? I live at work (literally) and have all out going expenses paid for. my entire yearly expenditure is less than £1500 the rest of my pay goes into the 4 months i spend with my wife a year. I have lived like this for years very happily.

The government flutters money down the drain to anyone that asks for it but then denies families of being together brilliant! Sure you should be able to prove that you can support yourselves but there should be no minimum or maximum to that. Every case is different you would have thought they had grasped that by now....

I think the government has it about right at the £18k figure. Anyway the sucker punch here is the more stringent language requirement, that will cause carnage.

no matter the figure i think its wrong. However, if it was £18,600 or £25,000 min does this take into account both adults working once there settled (taking into account job prospects) or is this the minimum that the settled spouse must be earning in order to facilitate the visa for the other half?

5 years of a civil engineering degree will be a waste if i have to go into English teaching. we are not prepared to wait anymore.

Do they really have any idea how much life costs in UK? I live at work (literally) and have all out going expenses paid for. my entire yearly expenditure is less than £1500 the rest of my pay goes into the 4 months i spend with my wife a year. I have lived like this for years very happily.

The government flutters money down the drain to anyone that asks for it but then denies families of being together brilliant! Sure you should be able to prove that you can support yourselves but there should be no minimum or maximum to that. Every case is different you would have thought they had grasped that by now....

Your making a good case for the government.

You cannot assume employment, that is the whole point.

You cannot seriously be suggesting that £1500 a year will be a fair reflection of your expenses if you set up home with your spouse.

You will need to prove that you can look after your spouse based upon your own income. Who can seriously suggest that is an onerous request?

The UK has been needing to sort out these issues for years, now that it has the bleating will be deafening.

Hold a referendum on this issue today, ( this narrow issue of British citizens having to prove they can support their foreign spouses ), and the result would be so one sided it would be laughable.

Sometimes, as they say, be careful what you ask for, sometimes you get it. In my own case I will qualify on the financial aspect. That is a tangible and to some extent controllable issue.

My worry is the language requirement, my lady and many others have passable conversational English, however this new requirement has introduced an intangible that already causing problems at the current level, and it will only get worse. Make no mistake the Mail on Sunday link named Thailand for a reason.

Okay, another issue has been reported today, the government is talking about abrogating Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to family life part.

It's aimed at criminals trying to avoid deportation, if parliament get's it's teeth into that Article watch out for the law of unintended consequences.

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is the most contentious and hated part of the Act, the British public will raise a cheer if it's repealed.

I wouldn't put it past some politicians making it a cause celebre, and attack immigration through it. I'm not being melodramatic, we've all seen things like this happen before.

This is now the first item on the evening news and it is very contentious so it just may see the government doing another "U"turn.

This is the Home Secretary looking for soft targets in order to reduce the number immigrants coming to the UK, on being elected Cameron made a pledge to reduce the numbers coming to the UK, and every year they go up.

Seems the Home Secretary is lashing out a bit this weekend, if she really wants to Currie favour with the PM she should read Edwena's diaries.

I can't seem to make the numbers balance, I count the following:

185k work related

50k family related

237k students/study related

20k asylum seekers

That accounts for 492k but the total is 593k so I don't understand where the difference is. Also, there were 52k removals that need to be factored in, anyone?

I would be interested to see the resukls from the authorities that have worked the figures in this.

If we assume that 50% of the 53,000 applications will no longer be valid (as quoted in the press), each application: GBP 826 settlement visa fee plus GBP 851 naturalisation fee that's total revenue of GBP 44.4m per year (assuming constant flow and each person comes with the intention to settle permanantly).

How much public costs will be saved? Short term mainly NHS costs as no other recourse to public funds from my understanding. Probably difficult to find statistics in relation to this but 44.4m seems like a big hole to fill.

Maybe they will replace most of it with the additional fees required to be paid for increasing ILR time period from 2 to 5 years. Assuming that there has been no guidance released for how to bridge the additional time requirement I am assuming that FLR will be required. How long is FLR valid for? (couldn't find much concrete evidence but suggestions are 2 years). If it is 2 years that means each applicant will now pay for 1 settlement fee, 2 FLRs and 1 ILR as oppsed to just the 1 settlement fee and 1 ILR as it currently stands. At least they know that everyone is earning sufficient income to be able to afford all these extra fees!

Also no-one has questioned yet what level of proof they want in relation to the income requirement. For example does the sponsor have to have payslips from the UK for 6 months? Is a job offer sufficient evidence? What if the job offer is only contract work for 6 months with an option to extend? What if the job offer has a probabtionary period of 1 month? Is potential employment sufficient evidence?

In my case I have been working in Thailand and not been in the UK for quite a few years but am relocating back to the UK with my Thai wife and young family. Under the new rules would I have had to split the family unit up so I could secure work in the UK before applying for the settlement visa? How can that be fair for the couple with young children? It seems like we got our application approved just in time - Just haev to play the waiting game in relation to any changes in ILR.

If I would have looked then all the statistics exist in the consultation paper, it seems that the numbers for "family" visa's are actually bigger than first thought, the following quote explains:

"In 2010, family migration with a route to settlement in the UK was 114,700.4 This includes the ‘family route’ (48,900).5 It also includes the dependants of skilled workers under Tier 1 and Tier 2 of the pointsbased system and equivalents (45,200), dependants joining or accompanying non-points-based system and pre-pointsbased system migrants (15,400),6 300 dependants of domestic workers in private

households, and 4,900 people granted a family reunion visa to join a refugee in the UK."

Perhaps a bigger part of the problem has to do with family visit visa's and the fact that there were some 50k people removed, this includes students and family members who have "overstayed". It's worth remembering at this point that the UK admits it does not know how many illegal overstayers there are in the country:

"In 2010, family migration without a route to settlement in the UK was 33,000.7 This includes the dependants of Tier 4 (students) of the points-based system (31,800) and Tier 5 and other temporary workers. In 2010, 350,300 family visit visas were granted for the purpose of visiting family in the UK."

The document is lengthy but the executive summary is well worth reading, if interested in understanding what it's all about.

@dracos, the fees are irrelevant. On your other point, what did you plan to do in connection with relocating your family?

@chiangmai, as you have pointed out, it is a consultative paper, if it ever becomes law it will be a different beast from what it currently appears.

I don't think many politicians will object to an affordability test, they may argue about the level. We'll just need to wait and see what Parliament agrees, if anything.

well this will fully screw me over if its put at 25000, 18,000 i can just about cover.

this is just getting harder by the day! my anxeity has just gone threw the roof as im ment to be applying in 9 weeks

well they dont seem to be agreeing but she wants it to come into affect on july 9th.

personally i think its unfair, i dont even know what my yearly income is at the minute as i used to work only 6 months a year. so i dont know where i stand??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/jun/11/theresa-may-deportation-human-rights-live

i wonder if 3rd party support will still be a viable option with these new minimum income requirements?

i wonder if 3rd party support will still be a viable option with these new minimum income requirements?

No, not allowed, 83.m

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/news/soi-fam-mig.pdf

hold up - with these new financial regulations, were i to have 16'000 pounds in my control for 6 months prior to application, id be fine to apply for a settlement visa?

"81.The existing maintenance requirement for partners will be replaced by a financial requirement based in most cases on the sponsor’s earnings from employment (or those of the sponsor and applicant where both are in the UK). We will require a minimum gross annual income of £18,600 (or the relevant higher figure where a child or children under the age of 18 are also being sponsored), which can also include the sponsor and applicant’s non-employment and pension income and income from certain contributory benefits. There will be scope for cash savings above £16,000 (the level generally disqualifying a person from income-related benefits) to be used to meet all or part of the financial requirement, if they have been held by the sponsor or applicant for at least six months and are under their control."

hold up - with these new financial regulations, were i to have 16'000 pounds in my control for 6 months prior to application, id be fine to apply for a settlement visa?

"81.The existing maintenance requirement for partners will be replaced by a financial requirement based in most cases on the sponsor’s earnings from employment (or those of the sponsor and applicant where both are in the UK). We will require a minimum gross annual income of £18,600 (or the relevant higher figure where a child or children under the age of 18 are also being sponsored), which can also include the sponsor and applicant’s non-employment and pension income and income from certain contributory benefits. There will be scope for cash savings above £16,000 (the level generally disqualifying a person from income-related benefits) to be used to meet all or part of the financial requirement, if they have been held by the sponsor or applicant for at least six months and are under their control."

I saw that, so it could be a gift from one's parents 6 months prior to an application and it would be ok, or just savings that the sponsor has accrued or robbed from somebody!

The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that the average gross salary for full-time employees was £26,200 in 2011. So why all the complaints regarding the proposed minimum income level

possibly because not everyone makes enough to cover the minimum requirements?

possibly because not everyone makes enough to cover the minimum requirements?

It seems to me that if the proposed financial threshold was lowered, whoever didn't meet the criteria will whine on about it; a never ending cycle.

Edited June 12, 201214 yr by simple1

The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that the average gross salary for full-time employees was £26,200 in 2011. So why all the complaints regarding the proposed minimum income level

To extend upon simple1's comment and link this is the median average so it is not distorted by fat-cat earners. This means that the majority of the working population in the UK will meet this standard. The fact that the majority of the applicants/sponsors for family visas would not meet these thresholds I think demonstrates that it is not your average working class citizen that is normally applying for these types of visas.

If you are still working with an average job then you should still meet the requirements. Pensioners will be among the hardest hit - maybe this was one of their targets. Whilst I know it is not always the case IMO the relationships with large age differences are viewed as the most suspect by the immigration officers and introducing this requirement will reduce the number of foreign nationals coming to the UK to take advantage of the old men (I am not trying to flame as I am aware of successful relationships with large age differences before anyone gets too defensive).

The problem with this measure is that it does not take into account regional variances and cost of living. I am sure there are some jobs in London that will pay the 26,000 but if you do the same job in the mountains of Scotland or a sleepy village in the North of England you may only get half that amount, however you are living a better life as the cost of living in those places is less than half. These are the cases in which the applicant/sponsor is being discriminated against due to where they choose to live and this is not fair.

If the NHS can have two different rates of pay, a higher one for London and the South and a lower one for up North, why not two different earnings figures for visa purposes, unless of course it's only southerners who are allowed to have foriegn wives - I am of course half joking in this matter. But only half since it does highlight the north south disparity when it comes to government legislation such as this.

@dracos, the fees are irrelevant. On your other point, what did you plan to do in connection with relocating your family?

The fees are not completely irrelevant to me if it means I end up having to pay twice as much due to these new rules!

In relation to plans for our family, there are some aspects of the Thai ways of life I would like instilled in our children. Others, such as state education in Thailand, leave us feeling a little underwhelmed. Whilst I have a good job in Thailand, I cannot foresee it generating sufficient funds to provide a Western education to our children which is one of the main reasons why we are relocating back to the UK.

Whilst it may seem that one of the reasons to move back is to take advantage of the better publicly funded facilities in the UK such as education and healthcare, we will also be bringing our earnings and taxes back to the UK (and with my children having British nationality through birth, they are perfectly entitled to these benefits IMO).

Apologies as this is off topic however I was just replying to a related question posed to me.

Back to the main discussion....

If the NHS can have two different rates of pay, a higher one for London and the South and a lower one for up North, why not two different earnings figures for visa purposes, unless of course it's only southerners who are allowed to have foriegn wives - I am of course half joking in this matter. But only half since it does highlight the north south disparity when it comes to government legislation such as this.

You make a very valid point, the Government accepts that there is a north south divide, or at least accepts there is a argument for regional pay. As well as the NHS they are trying to introduce regional pay for a number of government departments, including the UKBA.

I am not against applicants having to prove that they will be self sufficient if they wish to live in the UK, but by setting an arbitrary figure, however well researched it's claimed to be, they are just going to make the whole process a box ticking exercise.

@dracos, the fees are irrelevant. On your other point, what did you plan to do in connection with relocating your family?

The fees are not completely irrelevant to me if it means I end up having to pay twice as much due to these new rules!

In relation to plans for our family, there are some aspects of the Thai ways of life I would like instilled in our children. Others, such as state education in Thailand, leave us feeling a little underwhelmed. Whilst I have a good job in Thailand, I cannot foresee it generating sufficient funds to provide a Western education to our children which is one of the main reasons why we are relocating back to the UK.

Whilst it may seem that one of the reasons to move back is to take advantage of the better publicly funded facilities in the UK such as education and healthcare, we will also be bringing our earnings and taxes back to the UK (and with my children having British nationality through birth, they are perfectly entitled to these benefits IMO).

Apologies as this is off topic however I was just replying to a related question posed to me.

Back to the main discussion....

I'm not questioning your rights or reasons for returning to the UK, I regard your children as British as I am, and they are entitled and very welcome to be educated and brought up in the UK.

Your earlier point was about being able to prove your income, would you not consider it logical for you to return to the UK alone, get employment and a home sorted out, then send for your family? I'm concerned your in for a shock.

@chiangmai and theoldgit, you both know I'm Scottish I believe, this proposed £18,000 figure for a single guy is easily achievable here, that's the kind of pay a bus driver would expect to get.

In my area, a single guy can live just fine on that, he would expect to pay about £100 a week housing cost for a one bedroom council flat, council tax, electricity etc combined.

That would leave him about £170 a week disposable after tax, for a single guy that's plenty for food and a few pints etc. A married couple would get by on that too without risking starvation and dying of boredom.

I think it's a realistic and fair figure to go on. I could countenance some argument for a little less net income however not much less without the risk of crashing into poverty.

I would suggest though that it would be a lot tougher to surive on that net figure in London or the Home Counties. Swings and roundabouts.

Anybody sitting in Thailand contemplating coming home to the UK should be aware that you really would need £250 a week net minimum if you were unable to get Benefits, and if you end up in private let accomadation? Without benefits? These days you would need to allocate a minimum, and I mean a bare minimum of £150 a week total housing cost, more likely £180 to £200+

@7by7, I know you live down South, do you think there would be any value in starting a UK living expenses thread? Has there been one recently? I would be happy to provide a full analysis of realistic Scottish figures, maybe some other members could provide the figure for their region?

I'm asking in advance as I don't want to spam up this forum with an unsuitable topic.